# How Ni and Ne are alike



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I actually wonder how much of that focus on a subject is actually Je. It always seemed logical to associate it with Pi, but is that true?
> 
> Also, the bolded. This is exactly how conversations with Ni types go, as myself and Ni types I know have repeatedly noted. We are doing the same thing... operating in the same medium, but they want to deepen the perspective.. and I want to expand it... no, not expand. I think of Ne very much in terms of a mosaic. It is about contextualizing that perspective by inducting others... thus creating a greater whole. So, for me it is not ideal to hone my comprehension of one perspective... though it is beneficial and certainly makes for an interesting conversation. Yes, there is a constant push and pull between Ne and Ni in this way. It can be quite dynamic and rewarding for both parties.


Pi and Te definitely work together. I probably continue to go back to the same subject because my Te (or Fe for them) wants to put it in a structure and what I've gathered isn't fitting that structure. Where Ne wants to take in as many subjects to form their Ti/Fi structures. The more information the better their system. 

Working together is interesting. I get the concept and we both see it as abstract so that connection is there. I'm sure if everyone understands the differences, then the similarities can work and come together as a team.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> maybe Ne zooms out to see the universe.
> And Ni zooms in to see the particle.
> 
> And Ne is like "Ah, this is how it all fits together"
> And Ni is like "Ah, this is what it all really is"


Nah. From the way I understand it is that Ne zooms out so you can see each end clearly, where it starts and where it ends, but Ni sees both ends at the same time because they are the same end.

I'm DA-cognition biased though.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Aleysia said:


> I kind of disagree with this.
> 
> I think of it as searching for the sake of understanding something better, and recognizing that everything is connected, but that I might not know _what_ is connected enough to do a focused search.
> 
> Sort of like what they say about studies of the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), and how you always need to go one level up/down in order to really understand a subject matter. Hard to really understand biology without also understanding chemistry, for instance.


I understand that to the Ne user it isn't pointless, otherwise you wouldn't do it. And there is real value to it. It's just from an Ni perspective, I see it that way, which is why I want to narrow and exclude instead of explore. If I can't understand the true meaning then exploring will lead me in the wrong direction. 

I like to look to the motives. Ni users probably ran into problems early on when they tried to explore the intangible and instead found value in narrowing it. And Ne users had the other experience where exploring it gave them some pleasure, so they developed intuition that way.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

arkigos said:


> Er, not ... really? My Ne is a great deal more..... intangible than that.... I want to say 'abstract'. That sounds like 'stuff' to me. I am more concerned with the nature of things, and how they fit in their essence. This is very difficult to describe. You say it is a 'big big model'... but, what does that mean? I organize the things I perceive... kinda like Tetris! but what I perceive is......... quite, er, conceptual? I wish I had better words.


It was my description of *Ti*, not Ne. Big big model is my version of the Ti framework that _I fill_ with filtered information I perceive. A framework with a lot of blank places which signifies the unknown which I am still to uncover. 
That is how I see it my mind. As a zoomable Omniverse of everything I know in which I can walk while introspecting (as in a daydream) and use it a sourse of information for Ne, though it is not as good as external factor (new information). It is a pretty flexible system and it hungers to expand. External factor boosts the process of extension of the model. 

Sounds like a perception of Ti-structured memory of everything by Ne.

How do you store your data? What do you mean, _like Tetris_?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Aha said:


> It was my description of *Ti*, not Ne. Big big model is my version of the Ti framework that _I fill_ with filtered information I perceive. A framework with a lot of blank places which signifies the unknown which I am still to uncover.
> That is how I see it my mind. As a zoomable Omniverse of everything I know in which I can walk while introspecting (as in a daydream) and use it a sourse of information for Ne, though it is not as good as external factor (new information). External factor boosts the process of extension of the model. It is a pretty flexible system and it hungers to expand.
> 
> Sounds like a perception of Ti-structured memory of everything by Ne.
> ...


Ti doesn't store anything, it is a mechanism by which data is organized.

That would be like saying that a cheese grater stores cheese.

I mean 'like Tetris' because Ti, as a mechanism, organizes data into logical patterns. It makes things fit, logically and even strategically. It makes decisions based on logical configuration. Figuratively speaking, kinda like playing Tetris. 

But, Ti is just the cognitive process of organizing and 'fitting' data together in a logical framework. 

S and N is more like the medium, as I said.. N being the intangible/archetypal/conceptual/essential medium, S being the physical/tangible/information/observable medium. Rather, the cognitive processing and interacting with stimuli within those mediums. Not outside the mind, but inside the mind. This is important and I think one of the biggest mistakes people make in considering the Perceiving functions... this interaction is 'post perception', meaning that Se is not seeing a flower, but dealing with that stimuli in the mind after having (or during, I suppose) having brought it into cognition. This may seem like semantics, but it is all-important in correcting the misperception people have of Se in particular.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

arkigos said:


> Ti doesn't store anything, it is a mechanism by which data is organized.
> 
> That would be like saying that a cheese grater stores cheese.
> 
> ...


Those misconceptions come from people who don't use a particular function. Introverted functions can seem stingy, reluctant, stifling, selfish, etc. and extraverted functions can seem flippant, impersonal, unhinged, out-there, etc. 

When interacting with people who use those different functions, it can be hard to change that view. Yet, if we at least know that they all serve a purpose we can have that as a reference. 

I like the way you described Se and I think that is accurate. It isn't active to be active, it has a real purpose to gather those tangible data pieces in the most fundamental way. How does it feel/taste/smell/sound in real life and in real time. That is pertinent information.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> right, it was a metaphor.
> 
> regarding expansion of context and 'fitting'-- i do think the moment of 'fitting', while perhaps T-ish, also involves Ne. It's like... the moment where the camera perspective focuses? It's a somewhat more abrupt leap-like thing than the careful little steps of Ti. the feeling of a lot of ideas coalescing into a greater conceptual whole, sort of? like.... _aah_​.


Fusing disparate or paradoxical natures into a greater whole... with the almighty power of scope and context. Yes, profoundly rewarding. 

...and it is this moment where Ni types are the most valuable. Because, they will totally get it, but then they take it and move in the other direction... consolidating it, fleshing it out, deepening it. Shoring it up. What we do with our logical process, they do with their Ni. That is strange to me, but I can KINDA comprehend it when I relate it to my Si.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

arkigos said:


> Ti doesn't store anything, it is a mechanism by which data is organized.
> 
> That would be like saying that a cheese grater stores cheese.
> 
> ...


Thank you. It is what I meant. The mechanism by which data is ogranized. 
But what I wanted to describe is this (and I did it bad, but I will now describe it with more detail, how I see it, for my cognition and I will speculate about its interconnection with memory):

As I described the model of everything - it is located somewhere in memory, but is organized and structurized by Ti function during the process of cognition.
My perception is Ne/Si - I see a lot of associations, connections, possibilities, whatever I am perceiving at the moment. Ti process filter some of those unconsciously, but some more complex and new information is filtered consciously. When the process is conscious (and there is something to think about), you go into introverted mode and try to fit every possibility/connection Ne sees in the process of perception into this _big big model of everything_. 
You *are* in this model (like a dialogue with someone on the site of the unknown piece, trying to put strings that encircle it together) and try to integrate the new concept into the existing model. One after the other. 
Then, if something is more probable and fits (clicks), you go through the perception process again, while flying through this model of _everything. _You perceive now everything that touches the new concept. Everything it influences. You see new connections and you see what must be impoved and modified. You, again, sort this possibilities into the frame through Ti *again*. And if you deem something fitting there, you re-perceive this part of the model again. 
And this process can continue till there is nothing to improve without a new piece of information that you cannot deduct on your own. 
Why is see it as Omniverse? Because I fixated on the idea of understanding how the Universe works. Perhaps, for other people it is something else.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> I don't see Se having as hard of a time understanding Si, as Ne has with understanding Ni. Though, I do see that Fe and Fi can struggle understanding the other. I don't quite get Ti, though I still understand the method of it.


Who says Se has an easier time understanding Si than Ne has understanding Ni? I'm not sure I really do 'get' what Si is about and I doubt many people on here outside of Si-dom and Si-aux really get it. 

Just a thought.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

I picture Ni vs Ne like this - correct me if I'm wrong.









Ne is constantly expanding on connections, while Ni is constantly narrowing until all connections converge.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

monemi said:


> Who says Se has an easier time understanding Si than Ne has understanding Ni? I'm not sure I really do 'get' what Si is about and I doubt many people on here outside of Si-dom and Si-aux really get it.
> 
> Just a thought.


I do agree that we can only have an idea of what other functions are like outside of our own, but I think what Kathy was implying is there is a certain level of understanding, because it's coming from the same general idea.

For example, I often enjoy talking to ENTPs and ENFPs, because I can grab onto the many ideas given by their Ne, and I'll want to narrow in on the ones I think have potential. If I'm talking to an ISFJ for example, it takes more of an effort for us both to understand where we're coming from.

I don't think this helps us understand the other functions completely (we can only assume), but its a process that seems familiar when it comes to Se/Si vs Ne/Ni.

---

I like to view Ni as taking patterns and narrowing in on a single concept, flipping it upside down.
I like to view Ne as coming up with a completely new idea based on a single concept.

I think both Ni/Ne can see the same patterns, they just use the information differently or have a different purpose.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

candiemerald said:


> I picture Ni vs Ne like this - correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> View attachment 102962
> 
> ...


i would just add little sideways arrows linking all the Ne arrows into a big, loose ball.
i.e. it's not a wholly divergent process. there's a oneness to the end result.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

Pelopra said:


> i would just add little sideways arrows linking all the Ne arrows into a big, loose ball.
> i.e. it's not a wholly divergent process. there's a oneness to the end result.


Oh, cool. Something more like this, then?


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

candiemerald said:


> Oh, cool. Something more like this, then?
> 
> View attachment 102986


yep.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

RunForCover07 said:


> I do agree that we can only have an idea of what other functions are like outside of our own, but I think what Kathy was implying is there is a certain level of understanding, because it's coming from the same general idea.
> 
> For example, I often enjoy talking to ENTPs and ENFPs, because I can grab onto the many ideas given by their Ne, and I'll want to narrow in on the ones I think have potential. If I'm talking to an ISFJ for example, it takes more of an effort for us both to understand where we're coming from.
> 
> ...


http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...oblems-annoyances-complaints.html#post5285362

No. I think a lot of N posters have convinced themselves that they communicate better with N's because they are very closed minded. I don't have an easier time with Si's than I have with Ne's and Ni's. I do find a lot of N's like to tell me that I have an easier time communicating with other sensors though.


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

monemi said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...oblems-annoyances-complaints.html#post5285362
> 
> No. I think a lot of N posters have convinced themselves that they communicate better with N's because they are very closed minded. I don't have an easier time with Si's than I have with Ne's and Ni's. I do find a lot of N's like to tell me that I have an easier time communicating with other sensors though.


Interesting. Could you expound upon that? 

Do you feel you relate better to extroverted N functions than introverted S functions? So, you would relate better to Ne because it is an extroverted function, and less to Ni or Si, since they are introverted functions?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

candiemerald said:


> Interesting. Could you expound upon that?
> 
> Do you feel you relate better to extroverted N functions than introverted S functions? So, you would relate better to Ne because it is an extroverted function, and less to Ni or Si, since they are introverted functions?


I've had best communications with ESTP, ENTJ and ESTJ. My two most intimate relationships have been with an ISFJ and INTJ. And yet communicated badly with both and it's always takes work (worth it). My longest lasting, close friendships have been with ESFP, ENTP and INTP. 

I don't have a type that I just relate well to. I have individuals that I have developed relationships with over time. As I learned about them, I grew to relate to them. But if I'd just blocked people off because they don't think like me, there would have been an extremely small given that I haven't met anyone in real life that thinks like me and is easy to relate to.


----------



## Nexus6 (May 21, 2010)

Pelopra said:


> maybe Ne zooms out to see the universe.
> And Ni zooms in to see the particle.
> 
> And Ne is like "Ah, this is how it all fits together"
> And Ni is like "Ah, this is what it all really is"


Yes, if I had to give you a visual representation of how I think, using Ni, it is like a zoom lens. My overall assumption, always..is that everything is connected, but I don't visualize all of that interconnectivity at once. Rather, my focus at any given time is working through each connection individually, thoroughly and then moving on to the next few threads to be woven in.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

monemi said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...oblems-annoyances-complaints.html#post5285362
> 
> No. I think a lot of N posters have convinced themselves that they communicate better with N's because they are very closed minded. I don't have an easier time with Si's than I have with Ne's and Ni's. I do find a lot of N's like to tell me that I have an easier time communicating with other sensors though.


You're only closed minded if you lack the ability to learn from other types, which is the point you're making and I can agree with.

But, two different bakers are going to understand the art of baking more than a chief, but that doesn't mean a chief can't learn to understand the concept of baking or even be good at it.

Ni/Ne: Both see the world intuitively, why wouldn't they have a connection?
Si/Se: Both see the sensory world, why wouldn't they have a connection?

It's all about the stack of the functions and perspective. That means that even two intutives can have a disconnect, but they may understand why versus why they're having a S/N disconnect.

_Why can't you see my vision?_
_Why can't you see my experience?_

If you look at the big picture, all of the functions help support one another, and it would be silly to say that some people don't use other types to support their lacking functions, or use the same functions to come together to formulate ideas. Isn't that concept of life and people in general?

This concept isn't who you agree or disagree with (or make friends with based on MBTI), but a level of understanding of where the idea is originating from.

I'm sure you and your ISFJ husband have a mutual understanding at some point of the sensory world than you would if you married an INFJ. This doesn't mean that you and this INFJ couldn't enjoy the same sensory experiences, but the idea of why could be from a totally different perspective or concept completely (that could be a disconnect, but maybe not.).

So, you're right, you can't use MBTI in the sense that you think I am, but I'm looking at it beyond the surface, rather seeing how they not only overflow (S/N S/S N/N, but also connect in different ways. It would actually be closed minded of me not to explore this thought.

This is why I understand where Kathy was coming from, because I understand her perception through Ni.

All types should learn from one another and work together ideally. Sadly, this isn't always the case, even within our own type.

---

Sorry, I just had a thought and was putting it out there, I didn't mean this be argumentative or anything.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

RunForCover07 said:


> You're only closed minded if you lack the ability to learn from other types, which is the point you're making and I can agree with.
> 
> But, two different bakers are going to understand the art of baking more than a chief, but that doesn't mean a chief can't learn to understand the concept of baking or even be good at it.
> 
> ...


Again, YOU view the world in an S vs N divide. You view the world that N's have a mutual understanding that S's can't share and that S's have a mutual understanding that N's can't share. This is not a perspective that I share. You fail to understand my marriage. You fail to understand me. And you haven't opened your mind from the last time we disagreed on this. You have shut the door on Sensors and decided Sensors understand Sensors and Intuitives understand Intuitives. It's not like that at all.


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

Pelopra said:


> maybe Ne zooms out to see the universe.
> And Ni zooms in to see the particle.
> 
> And Ne is like "Ah, this is how it all fits together"
> And Ni is like "Ah, this is what it all really is"


I used to do both of that, joined the likes of cosmology / quantum clubs at the age of 9 I believe. I went as far as buying a telescope but got bored, went onto the next interest. Whenever I think about the universe I see it in terms of its lowest scale and highest scales which may be regarded as Ni esque since Ni deals with looking at the box but it was my mind's way exploring to other dimensions and the countless abstract possibilities. I'm willing to bet the likes of Michio Kaku are Ne dom, they often seem to think about the metaphysical interconnections of the universe rather than the more scientifically immediate though he seems to use Ti as per his humour and has such patience for just that field seemingly whereas like me I would rather deal with feeler things more. Stephen Hawking on the other hand seems Ni-dom, oriented on defeating the concept of god, perhaps due to autistic aggression towards any sense of creator as per possessing the disability he has, just like how Adolf had the preplanned goal to do all in his power to make his inner world view a reality. Ni is like shotgun intuition, in an Ni dom it's like everything has its one purpose and so does said Ni dom.

I had a lot of interests as a child, I couldn't stand doing just one or two activities. I had a terrible Fe, too, I was literally blind to how others may be feeling way into my early teens when after being bullied I started to develop my Fi more strongly and find a sense of right and wrong while seeing exception to the social group. Prior to Fi development I had done things others may regard as somewhat sadistic, that's because I saw no boundaries and if my freedom was questioned, I would be pretty much be like a tornado though most of the time I was warm and excited, upon Fi development I became more like a tornado in a glass jar. Te development I believe is really starting to kick in now on a practical level as I am becoming more plan oriented and I have been trying to somewhat become more critical minded using how I think people better at keeping their life on track might think and this self-elected Ti-esqueness I have been trying to assimilate kind of makes me wonder if socionics is actually more accurate for describing a maturing ENFP as MBTI seems to focus more on natural function from life beginnings rather than the functional development. On tornadoes again, I remember I had quite a thing for tornadoes once as a kid at one point, actually, that was quite a somewhat exciting shock to think that is a memory, proves my Si is poor but extant in the inferior currently, though Se seems to be maturing, again that seems to put Model A as a more correct model in terms of personal development in my eyes but in ENFP the Te and Si is going to be more energising naturally but the Ti and Se is going to be more beneficial as it grounds the Ne Fi.

Anyway, Ni is hitting the nail with a hammer, Ne is going to wonder if it can hit the nail in with the other end which is probably wood or plastic because Ne is more innovative like that. Why Ne is so energetic is because it is charged by the positivity of seeing the various items in a situation and seeing the alternate purposes. Intellectual Ne gets entertained by the various smaller words it can see in an anagram, Ni gets entertained by finding the full word and irritated at what it sees as the little things. Hence, Ne enjoys all the little things in life and the original imaginative ideas it can make, Ni enjoys the big things that make timely significance. Ne looks into a magical realm of various wonders and wants to explore all the potential, Ni wants to see drama and keeps to the clear path to the most grandeur thing the eyes can see - Se would be like what the hell did I smoke, Si would feel touched by the concept of magic if its sentimental or feel alienated from the unfamiliar realm. Ni has a world view that barely shifts usually that maps out their future and prefers social creativity to the visionary, Ne uses Fi or Ti for aims mostly and strives not to the idea of purpose so much as giving support to what they value or have creative visions regarding yet for example an Ne will often skip checking their values and be emerged in exploring possibilities or disregarding demanding authority/routine. Ne cannot stand boxes, tell it the universe is finite in some respect and it'll defeat the object by immersing itself with the idea of infinite possibilities, Ni doesn't mind boxes so much as it'll just keep planning ahead but then it'll want to burst out and it doesn't mind a finite universe because that makes them feel they have the ability to dominate some part of the world for as much as they want to. Ni sees Ne as aimless in the sense it tends to enjoy things for what they are more abstractly and all their cross-functionality yet Ne sees Ni as aimless in the sense it sees Ni driven to a point in time that will come to an end, Ne doesn't like endings and tends to jump from project to project to give a sense of open world reality over conclusion. Fi or Ti is utility to the Ne dom because it drives them to actually get stuff done and Ne when it takes a course it must be faced with what it cannot predict so easily so it can enjoy guessing what's next while being energised by the fact it works towards Fi/Ti goals. Te and Fe is utility to the Ni dom because it allows them to deal with the idea of having people skills making them well-supported in the environment so as to get stuff done for the Ni inner purpose. Ni Te is pretty robotic, Ni is like a software routine guiding them and Te is like their pragmatic method of communication. Ni Fe is pretty much persuasive, Ni is like a fundamental drive giving them a sense of worth in life and Fe is like their method of keeping things harmonised in social groups or even getting others to crusade their world view with them. Ne Fi is like let's make ideas that agree with my values, Ne Ti is like let's make ideas that agree with my way of thinking. Ni really is the opposite to Ne but it is in the same dimension (perceptive catalyst). The similarity is both are somewhat future orientated and care more for abstract meaning than the past/present concrete S,


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

monemi said:


> Again, YOU view the world in an S vs N divide. You view the world that N's have a mutual understanding that S's can't share and that S's have a mutual understanding that N's can't share.


Not exactly, I think there is a spectrum of understanding between intuitive and sensing types, depending on where the S/N is at in the stack of the personality type.



> This is not a perspective that I share. You fail to understand my marriage. You fail to understand me. And you haven't opened your mind from the last time we disagreed on this. You have shut the door on Sensors and decided Sensors understand Sensors and Intuitives understand Intuitives. It's not like that at all.


It wasn't about your personal life or marriage, my goal isn't to attack you. I'm sorry you perceived it that way and missed my point. Ideally this wasn't even about sensors versus intuitive types, I was making the point that we should all learn from another, and understand that our perceptions originate from different places. You turned it into that...

I felt my post was very opened minded. *Shrugs shoulders*


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

monemi said:


> Who says Se has an easier time understanding Si than Ne has understanding Ni? I'm not sure I really do 'get' what Si is about and I doubt many people on here outside of Si-dom and Si-aux really get it.
> 
> Just a thought.


I have no problem being wrong. I viewed it from my perspective and seeing the similarities in the Si and Se users I know. Now that you mention it, there are multiple threads about Si. The comment was too hastily made.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

monemi said:


> Again, YOU view the world in an S vs N divide. You view the world that N's have a mutual understanding that S's can't share and that S's have a mutual understanding that N's can't share. This is not a perspective that I share. You fail to understand my marriage. You fail to understand me. And you haven't opened your mind from the last time we disagreed on this. You have shut the door on Sensors and decided Sensors understand Sensors and Intuitives understand Intuitives. It's not like that at all.


The whole reason I started the conversation was because I think the intuitive functions work the same way. They take the same information and move it in opposite directions. I think the sensor functions are also the same, but again they intake that information and move it in opposite directions. 

I see a lot of people making the Pi functions into something no one, but the dom users, can understand. I don't think they are so different that it's impossible to understand the other P functions. 

The intention wasn't to trivialize anyone, but to show the relation between the functions. Intuition isn't easy to relate to (even for intuitive users), so it's talked about more. That's really all I was getting at.


----------



## eydimork (Mar 19, 2014)

All I read was Myers misinterpretation regurgitated by community-fan authors who has derailed it even further.

Intuition isn't badly described by Jung, it's just lacking in detail, especially intuition in an introvert. He never said anything about intuition being about symbolism, or seeing things in this or that light. Because all of that shit is made up and spewed all over the place by communities like this who hasn't really read fuck all about it, really. Jung said that feeling works in symbolism. Yes, feeling. Especially expressed feeling (extraversion). You can go watch that weird TV series "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" to paint a picture. Almost all the characters in that series, even the gladiators are Feeling types, much like the author. The whole series is filled with symbolism. Something-something about the bringer of rain and splitting the sky and jupiter's piss and then the rain fell just in that very moment when he died and it was a sign. These guys were the prophets and priests and alchemists of our days. They keep making symbolic interpretations, and it never ends. 

The introverted intuitive is not a scientist, nowhere near. Jung said that the introverted intuitive was an artist, whom found himself in his art. And by art he means literally art. Painting and shit, writing poems, creating music. He also said that the introvert intuitive is extremely rational, as in the opposite of the _empirical_ school of thought (not rational as in smart), hence why a scientific inclination is extremely contradicting to the type. He also said that the introverted intuitive is often extremely religious. And that the introverted intuitive type is extremely dependent. The introverted intuitive is so far from autonomy it's heartbreaking. And he's a hypochondriac. And he's a sweetheart. You know that movie about that dude who he eat pills to get smart? Yeah, that's him. That's an introverted intuitive. That's the guy you're looking for. He's the epitome of an introverted intuitive (Until he gets his hands on IQ-pills then it's all downhills from there). And there is no introverted intuitive thinking type or introverted intuitive feeling type, there is just one type, introverted intuition. Nothing comes after intuition, there's only intuition. No T comes after N, there's just N. Chances are if you typed yourself IN*T*J, you should probably change to ISxJ or ITxP because INTJ does not make any sense what so ever. 

Now let's go over the extraverted intuitive. Well, he's going to be the exact opposite of that, said Jung. He is extremely empirical, and hates rational thinking. Here's your scientist, ladies and gentlemen. And he's a bit of a cunt, but not without good reason, or so he calls it. Good reason to him, is to always leave his options open. He's an opportunist, to the point of going "I reserved my love for my wife in case I found someone better, and now that I found a new woman that I like more, I'm gonna swap." He does the same thing in his career path, which is why he often likes, oh, let's see, wall street. And when he gets real pissy with people, when it's time for him to deal in judgement, he projects "since I don't have any principles, you don't have any principles". He projects, a lot. So he makes some fascinating fucked up laws. America, the capitalist opportunist hub of the planet, is filled with these. He is also extremely compulsive. And he loves sophistry. Sophistry, you know that bullshit they spam on Tumblr and Facebook all the time, those cute little images with the tiny piece of bullshit text on it, the quotes and shit that doesn't really make any sense? Yeah, that's it. He loves that. He can't get enough of it. You know Barney Stinson, the guy who has a wall full of motivationals? Yeah, that's him. He gives cold harsh criticism, makes cold hard choices, he goes fuck it, think whatever, gotta make a choice, this is a good choice even if it's not, and if it's a bad choice I'll pretend it wasn't bad. And again, there is no extraverted intuitive thinking or extraverted intuitive feeling, there is just one type, extraverted intuition. Nothing comes after intuition, there's only intuition. No F comes after N, there's just N. Chances are if you typed yourself EN*F*P, you should probably change to ExFJ or IxFP because ENFP does not make any sense what so ever. 

Source: C.G. Jung, Collected Works, Volume 6, Page 330-407.


Sorry for breaking all your hearts. 


Bye bye.


----------



## Nexus6 (May 21, 2010)

@eydimork I had just logged off and had to log back in to tell you I love you for this, I really do. Thank you. Finally.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

eydimork said:


> All I read was Myers misinterpretation regurgitated by community-fan authors who has derailed it even further.
> 
> Intuition isn't badly described by Jung, it's just lacking in detail, especially intuition in an introvert. He never said anything about intuition being about symbolism, or seeing things in this or that light. Because all of that shit is made up and spewed all over the place by communities like this who hasn't really read fuck all about it, really. Jung said that feeling works in symbolism. Yes, feeling. Especially expressed feeling (extraversion). You can go watch that weird TV series "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" to paint a picture. Almost all the characters in that series, even the gladiators are Feeling types, much like the author. The whole series is filled with symbolism. Something-something about the bringer of rain and splitting the sky and jupiter's piss and then the rain fell just in that very moment when he died and it was a sign. These guys were the prophets and priests and alchemists of our days. They keep making symbolic interpretations, and it never ends.
> 
> The introverted intuitive is not a scientist, nowhere near. Jung said that the introverted intuitive was an artist, whom found himself in his art. And by art he means literally art. Painting and shit, writing poems, creating music. He also said that the introvert intuitive is extremely rational, as in the opposite of the _empirical_ school of thought (not rational as in smart), hence why a scientific inclination is extremely contradicting to the type. He also said that the introverted intuitive is often extremely religious. And that the introverted intuitive type is extremely dependent. The introverted intuitive is so far from autonomy it's heartbreaking. And he's a hypochondriac. And he's a sweetheart. You know that movie about that dude who he eat pills to get smart? Yeah, that's him. That's an introverted intuitive. That's the guy you're looking for. He's the epitome of an introverted intuitive (Until he gets his hands on IQ-pills then it's all downhills from there).


You had me until this point. The one thing about me that has been consistent is my dabbling in artistic pursuits. Everything you wrote sounds familiar to me (except the hypochondriac.) I can't stand the symbolic crap that gets thrown around either. I don't relate to it and I think it's total bs in relation to intuition.

And though, I appreciate Jung and all he did with his amazing theory, I can't agree that there is no judging aspect to an intuitive. That to me, makes no sense. Collecting observable information and never doing anything with it is not how the human mind works. 

I also don't think Jung was above improving his theory. If he were here today, with all the new information we've gained (which really isn't all that much, but still) he would still be improving his theory. To think he would have been satisfied with the theory without any further developments isn't realistic. 

Putting a perception and judging function together does add more truthful depth. Including extraverted and introverted functions together is logical and sensible. 

A Jung "purist" might disagree, but it's all there to see. It still needs to be fleshed out because it's not perfect, but if people are open to improving his theory, then it might actually get there one day.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> I'm moving a conversation from another thread here:
> 
> I find it strange when Ne users say they can't relate to Ni, it just shows how awful the descriptions of Ni are. Both functions are intuition so they work the same way, Ne users have a better reference to Ni, than say Si. So think of your intuition and instead of expanding an idea outward (all the possible places it can go) think of it as using the same technique to bring it to a point (shedding away the possibilities and finding the meaning or core.) Ne finds the relevancy in all the new relations a concept brings and Ni eliminates obscure relations and looks for the most accurate one. Where Ne accepts every small connection, Ni looks for the strongest connection. We both use non-tangible information to get there. We just move a concept in opposite directions.
> 
> ...


I don't think that both functions being Intuition means they should necessarily be able to understand each other? It took me a long time to figure out Ni; I think I have some grasp on it now, not just conceptually but personally (I think for an INFP, my Ni is fairly well-developed, whereas Fe and Se are particularly underdeveloped, lol). 

But you mention how they're "the exact same thing, just opposite directions"... I think the direction makes a big difference, here. With Ne, the expansion is... well, extremely important. But for my narrowing function, I use Si to balance it out... and so I have a Si-lens when it comes to understanding the process of narrowing. It's hard to get away from that, especially when *my* experience with impressions, ideas, energies, possibilities, etc, is *so* reflexively expansive. 

But you even mention that Fe and Fi might have a hard time understanding each other, despite that both are F. Why do you think there's a distinction, then? Why should N be better able to understand N, but F wouldn't necessarily be able to understand F? Fe makes such little sense to me, but Ti was also hard for me to understand, as was Se. Basically everything not in primary group of four... was hard to understand. And some of them still are (Fe and Se, in particular, as I mentioned).


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Well I basically agree with @eydimork. No need to make simple sh*t hard. Of course there is an auxiliary function, which serves as a support to main function (Psychological Types chapter X), but it is not nearly as important as main F.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> Well I basically agree with @_eydimork_. No need to make simple sh*t hard. Of course there is an auxiliary function, which serves as a support to main function (Psychological Types chapter X), but it is not nearly as important as main F.


disagree. my aux function of Ti is not merely a support, it's a very basic part of my life as much as Ne is. Those are the two functions I am basically incapable of "turning off". ever. 

(my tert and inf functions are kinda important given that they work in pairs with my dom/aux. but it's a quieter importance, I guess.)
(consciously focusing on tert/inf can also help "turn down volume" on overheated dom/aux in a much less strenuous way than, say, me attempting to use Se or Ni to tone down Ne)
(Yeah, sometimes Si is just Ne's "relax" function)


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> disagree. my aux function of Ti is not merely a support, it's a very basic part of my life as much as Ne is. Those are the two functions I am basically incapable of "turning off". ever.
> 
> (my tert and inf functions are kinda important given that they work in pairs with my dom/aux. but it's a quieter importance, I guess.)
> (consciously focusing on tert/inf can also help "turn down volume" on overheated dom/aux in a much less strenuous way than, say, me attempting to use Se or Ni to tone down Ne)
> (Yeah, sometimes Si is just Ne's "relax" function)


Then how one can determine if he/she leads with intuition or thinking if, as you said, both dominant and auxiliary functions are equally developed?


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> Then how one can determine if he/she leads with intuition or thinking if, as you said, both dominant and auxiliary functions are equally developed?


honestly, i'm not sure. 
my existing tentative theories for identifying dom function include:
1. the function more obvious when you were a kid
2. the function you're less consciously aware you're even using (the "given") (but this might just be Perception, period)
3. the function it gives you the biggest headache to imagine turning off (but this might just be Perception, period)

possibly it can be done by looking at tert/inf? although i haven't found that helpful in my case.


honestly, when deciding if i was an intp or entp, i ended up giving up on function order and just saying, look, am i energized around people? do i speak-and-process simultaneously, as opposed to separately? do i match basically all descriptions and explanations of extroversion except for dumb ones focused on "shallow conversation" or "dumb parties"? was i standing up giving speeches in front of crowds of people at age six? do people laugh at the thought of my being an introvert?
yes? 
okay, then, i'm an E.

---

further possible ways of telling include examining needs, is Ne or Ti a bigger need, I just find that given I need both of them, it's hard for me to measure which I need _more_. I think I can tentatively say that I feel more drained in low-Ne than low-Ti environments, though. I think Ti can feel a bit more optional, in terms of "can i choose to turn off my irritation at these people being wrong? Yes, yes I can. Ne-Fe social butterfly, go!" possibly.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> honestly, i'm not sure.
> my existing tentative theories for identifying dom function include:
> 1. the function more obvious when you were a kid
> 2. the function you're less consciously aware you're even using (the "given") (but this might just be Perception, period)
> ...


Hm interesting. I personally figured out, that if we stick to jungian system, I'm using some kind of N function as a main function, with thinking in a role of support/creative function. The more I read about this stuff, the more it seem obvious. I usually won't disregard intuition, even if it means adopting some "illogical" information to the system. I think Ti - Ne would use intuition as means to an end in filling gaps in the system (Ne as a creative function). Dunno if it makes sense to you :ninja:


Recently I stood before the absurd choice of an INTJ vs ENTP as a type. I set profile as ENTP cause I identify myself more with Ti Fe than Te Fi, but I'm not sure to be honest. Your method of identifying is confusing me a little, since I always considered myself as socially introverted, compared to other people.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

RunForCover07 said:


> This doesn't mean that you and this INFJ couldn't enjoy the same sensory experiences


Why would an INFJ implicitly be incapable of understanding or experiencing the sensory exactly the same way an ESTP is? At a very fundamental level they are exactly the same type, which is also the same argument you are putting forth here about S and N. By that token it should be as true for F and T but you don't see people circlejerk about how Ts understand each other and Fs understand each other. If anything you often see how Fe and Fi disagree over things rather than how they agree over some conceptual ethical understanding of how to organize themselves in the world.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

RunForCover07 said:


> Not exactly, I think there is a spectrum of understanding between intuitive and sensing types, depending on where the S/N is at in the stack of the personality type.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Assuming that S's will understand each other better and N's will understand each other. Put it this way: Will two right handed people understand each other better and two left handed people understand each other better? Or do you think right handed people and left handed people can understand each other? Cognitive functions are _just_ preferences. It doesn't indicate interests or depths or political leanings or anything of the sort. 

I didn't miss your point and I didn't take it as a personal attack. Whenever you read my posts you seem to take it as though I'm getting upset. Where are you getting these impressions? Weird. My point was that my marriage is not built on joint sensor understanding. That's you jumping to your own conclusions and complete misinterpreting and understanding from an outside perspective. There are plenty of relationships/marriages between sensors and intuitives that are happy. There isn't a rule that intuitives need to be with intuitives and sensors need to be with sensors to be happy. This division in your head between sensors and intuitives is as nonsensical as a divide between perceivers and judgers. Perceivers don't automatically have a better understanding of each other than they would with judgers and vice versa. 

A lot of intuitive posters on PerC building walls where there aren't any and you're one of them. 

I got your point. I got your point the last time we discussed this. I don't see why you assumed last time that I didn't understand your point and why you assume this time that I don't understand your point. Disagreeing with your point doesn't mean misunderstanding you. It means I disagree with you. That's all it means. 



Kathy Kane said:


> The whole reason I started the conversation was because I think the intuitive functions work the same way. They take the same information and move it in opposite directions. I think the sensor functions are also the same, but again they intake that information and move it in opposite directions.
> 
> I see a lot of people making the Pi functions into something no one, but the dom users, can understand. I don't think they are so different that it's impossible to understand the other P functions.
> 
> The intention wasn't to trivialize anyone, but to show the relation between the functions. Intuition isn't easy to relate to (even for intuitive users), so it's talked about more. That's really all I was getting at.


Agreed that I don't think it's something only dom users can understand. I think it's a leap to say that extraverted sensors have a better understanding of Si than extraverted intuitives have of Ni. I think there are a lot less extraverted sensors than there are extraverted intuitives. Therefore less questions about Si.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

eydimork said:


> All I read was Myers misinterpretation regurgitated by community-fan authors who has derailed it even further.
> 
> Intuition isn't badly described by Jung, it's just lacking in detail, especially intuition in an introvert. He never said anything about intuition being about symbolism, or seeing things in this or that light. Because all of that shit is made up and spewed all over the place by communities like this who hasn't really read fuck all about it, really. Jung said that feeling works in symbolism. Yes, feeling. Especially expressed feeling (extraversion). You can go watch that weird TV series "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" to paint a picture. Almost all the characters in that series, even the gladiators are Feeling types, much like the author. The whole series is filled with symbolism. Something-something about the bringer of rain and splitting the sky and jupiter's piss and then the rain fell just in that very moment when he died and it was a sign. These guys were the prophets and priests and alchemists of our days. They keep making symbolic interpretations, and it never ends.
> 
> ...


LOL. Though Jung did also write that the auxiliary of the Ni dom is most commonly Feeling and Thinking is rarer. I don't arse to go look for the exact quote but he phrases it something like "Feeling is most commonly found in this type" which makes sense given the artistic inclinations. From Psychological Types.

And I think there is a difference in symbolism and symbolism. Jung also claimed that Ti works with symbols. I think @PaladinX can fill me in here as I think he provided with the original quote about a Ti type who conceptualized the world similar to a sun god riding his cart across the galaxy. Some such.

In reference to what he was saying there however, I think that's different from what I think of picking up as Feeling symbolism e.g. the sadness of rain. That's a feeling tone. Yet it's also archetypal content that Ni attunes itself to, assuming the rain is meant to be used in such a way that it actually is supposed to represent sadness, just like Jung described the Ni type as conceptualizing the man who was laughing as being struck by an arrow in the heart. Are you going to argue that Jung's very example of the Ni type and how they experience reality (nevermind the amount of patients he treated like the INTJ woman who thought of her own illness as being a snake that came out of her mouth) is anti-symbolic? 

It begs the question what symbolism is and what it means and in what context.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

Meeeeeeh I did read bits of it...

I propose not to impose a dichotomy on perception-judgment relation as dom-aux. If I understood you (noname) right. 
They are symbiotic in an adult human. And furthermore, I do not like the P-J dichotomy at all. It is an extroverted dichotomy indicator (the mbti 4th letter). If you have a judging function as a dominant and you are still a perceiver... A strange relation for an introvert.

The main function is your essence, true. Every next one is colored/painted likewise/in accordance to dom. 
Like this

















Train of cognition
You can change the vagons positions if you desperately need them but you will not be able to put them forward or push the train with them alone.

As for Ni/Se, I can't help it but see it as a concoction of a counscious perception and a subconscious judgment. 
With Ne it is more semi-conscious perception and Si a source of stupid innuendos


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

candiemerald said:


> Oh, cool. Something more like this, then?
> 
> View attachment 102986


LOL! Makes us Ne doms look completely daft


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

Nightchill said:


> LOL! Makes us Ne doms look completely daft


Put more "data" points for Ne-dom and you will have multiplied amount of possibilities from which your Ji will gather much more potentially viable variants. I suppose, that is why Ne-doms are strong P and Ni-doms are J. But hey, it is much more interesting with many many many things to choose from


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

monemi said:


> Assuming that S's will understand each other better and N's will understand each other. Put it this way: Will two right handed people understand each other better and two left handed people understand each other better? Or do you think right handed people and left handed people can understand each other? Cognitive functions are _just_ preferences. It doesn't indicate interests or depths or political leanings or anything of the sort.


Cool fact: Sometimes left handed people can't use potato peelers unless they're inversed (my mother has this problem). A left handed person may complain that they don't make left handed potato peelers. A right handed person can understand that, but that doesn't mean they can relate with where the problem originated.

Can the left handed person still use the right handed potato peeler? Of course, they have a right hand. Does the right handed person have a problem with this? No, they can use it naturally.

Can other left handed people come together and undertand the frustrations of there not being a left handed potato peeler? Of course. Are right handed people going to do the same thing? Most likely not.

I'm not saying sensor can't understand intuition, I'm just saying they're going to have a certain judgement or perception based on the stack of their functions naturally.



> I didn't miss your point and I didn't take it as a personal attack. Whenever you read my posts you seem to take it as though I'm getting upset. Where are you getting these impressions? Weird. My point was that my marriage is not built on joint sensor understanding. That's you jumping to your own conclusions and complete misinterpreting and understanding from an outside perspective. There are plenty of relationships/marriages between sensors and intuitives that are happy. There isn't a rule that intuitives need to be with intuitives and sensors need to be with sensors to be happy. This division in your head between sensors and intuitives is as nonsensical as a divide between perceivers and judgers. Perceivers don't automatically have a better understanding of each other than they would with judgers and vice versa.


This is my example of how we can perceive and come to different judgements. When I brought up your marriage, I wasn't trying to make a prediction or even begin to assume how your marriage is (personally, I could careless). The point wasn't about your marriage, but rather that there are most likely times where you and your husband can enjoy a perspective of the sensing world, whether that's you noticing details with Se like you do naturally and his impression of those details naturally (Si). Something I suck at with having inferior Se naturally based on theory.

My point wasn't to say your marriage isn't any better or any less based on MBTI. I honestly don't even know why we're talking about marriage and MBTI at all.



> Whenever you read my posts you seem to take it as though I'm getting upset. Where are you getting these impressions? Weird.


It's because you latch onto words in a literal fashion and change my original point to mean something it didn't. I don't think you're during this purposely, rather it's just a miscommunication. I can understand how you got there or why you did, but I find it rather hard for me to explain myself in return in a manor that you understand without thinking I'm trying to mean something I don't. In fact, we agree on a lot of the same points, but are looking at them from a different perspective, which makes it even more frustrating for me. Lmao

I find there isn't a flow, rather you're always trying to counter my point with the same point from a different perspective, instead of you seeing we're talking about the same thing entirely. It comes off as argumentative without it meaning to.

---

In the end, I'm not trying to say that sensors and intuitive types can't understand each other, I'm talking about the order of the stack of functions and understanding where or how the idea originated, it has nothing to do with what sensors and intuitive types can't do.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

RunForCover07 said:


> Cool fact: Sometimes left handed people can't use potato peelers unless they're inversed (my mother has this problem). A left handed person may complain that they don't make left handed potato peelers. A right handed person can understand that, but that doesn't mean they can relate with where the problem originated.
> 
> Can the left handed person still use the right handed potato peeler? Of course, they have a right hand. Does the right handed person have a problem with this? No, they can use it naturally.
> 
> ...


I'm ambidextrous, everyone looks handicapped with their one handed preferences to me. A right handed person can relate to a left handed person if they've had similar experiences in different areas. They don't have to be exactly alike. 





> This is my example of how we can perceive and come to different judgements. When I brought up your marriage, I wasn't trying to make a prediction or even begin to assume how your marriage is (personally, I could careless). The point wasn't about your marriage, but rather that there are most likely times where you and your husband can enjoy a perspective of the sensing world, whether that's you noticing details with Se like you do naturally and his impression of those details naturally (Si). Something I suck at with having inferior Se naturally based on theory.
> 
> My point wasn't to say your marriage isn't any better or any less based on MBTI. I honestly don't even know why we're talking about marriage and MBTI at all.


Again, I don't see that I enjoy things with sensors like my husbands any differently than I do with intuitives. It's not about my marriage that I'm getting annoyed with you. It's this narrow-minded view, that you have to share the same cognitive functions to appreciate the same things. There are other intuitive posters that GET this. Why can't you? The things that my Se enjoy have zilch to do with what my Si husband appreciates. YOU have decided that as sensors we appreciate the same things because we are both sensors. YOU have grouped us together. Not MBTI. Not other all of the other intuitive posters. YOU. You have it in your head that THOSE people like the same shit. Just like those English people like the same thing. Um... no. We English people don't all like the same things or appreciate the same things. Not all Intuitives are going to share a bond of intuition and share an intuitive perspective of the world and not all sensors will share a sensing world. Would you just stop already? Se and Si are not under a Sensing heading. Just like Fe and Fi aren't under a feeling heading and should all viewed as one group. 

I don't know how to explain that I GET what you are fucking saying. I got it! I got it! I got it! I got it! YOU are not listening to me. You really aren't. Kathy heard me. Ephemereality heard me. Why don't you hear me? Yes, people with the same cognitive functions will share similar perspectives. Other extraverted sensors share a perspective. Despite your insistence to that Se and Si share sensing, they ARE NOT THE SAME group. I'm not getting tied up in the literal understanding. Would you stop dismissing my perspective with "You are not understanding the abstract" bullshit. Disagreeing with you is not the same as not understanding the abstract concept. You are rude! Now I am getting upset because you are refusing to hear me. You know what? I can only conclude that you are an idiot at this point and that I have wasted my time trying to communicate with you. You have thrown sensors into a bracket and refuse to hear me. 





> *It's because you latch onto words in a literal fashion and change my original point to mean something it didn't. I don't think you're during this purposely, rather it's just a miscommunication. I can understand how you got there or why you did, but I find it rather hard for me to explain myself in return in a manor that you understand without thinking I'm trying to mean something I don't. In fact, we agree on a lot of the same points, but are looking at them from a different perspective, which makes it even more frustrating for me. Lmao*
> 
> I find there isn't a flow, rather you're always trying to counter my point with the same point from a different perspective, instead of you seeing we're talking about the same thing entirely. It comes off as argumentative without it meaning to.
> 
> ...


You're so rude and dismissive and pretentious. You assume that I don't get it. I do get it. I disagree. I think it's time I block you as a poster. You are too intellectually dishonest to yourself and to others to communicate with.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

monemi said:


> You're so rude and dismissive and pretentious. You assume that I don't get it. I do get it. I disagree. I think it's time I block you as a poster. You are too intellectually dishonest to yourself and to others to communicate with.


I'm sorry if I'm coming off as rude and dismissive and pretentious, that's not my goal here. I don't mean that you're too stupid or you can't understand, rather I mean that we're just having a miscommunication in general (it has nothing to with who is smarter). If you feel I mean it in that way, i do apologize!

I'm just going to say I agree with you, because I do. We're just looking at it from a different perception.

---

My goal isn't to attack you or make you feel shitty, really.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

spectralsparrow said:


> I don't think that both functions being Intuition means they should necessarily be able to understand each other?
> 
> It took me a long time to figure out Ni; I think I have some grasp on it now, not just conceptually but personally (I think for an INFP, my Ni is fairly well-developed, whereas Fe and Se are particularly underdeveloped, lol).
> 
> ...


Understanding each other as individuals and where we are coming from is way more difficult than understanding the functions. 

I wanted to convey that the way the functions act are the same regardless of being introverted or extraverted. So where Ne takes a concept and makes external connections, Ni takes a concept and makes internal connections to the point. Say an Ne and Ni go outside on a sunny day. They both observe the way the Sun brightens their mood. The Ne will start exploring all the ways that brightened mood could be conceptually used externally. The Ni will start exploring what it is about that brighten mood and how it could conceptually be used for individuals personally. The same method is employed, they are just moving away from each other. 

I also think the judging functions can be understood from a function standpoint. But from the application it's way harder to understand. For the J functions, it could be worse. As Fe/Te want to put people in external systems and Fi/Ti want to build their own systems. It's a conflict right off the bat.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

monemi said:


> I'm ambidextrous, everyone looks handicapped with their one handed preferences to me. A right handed person can relate to a left handed person if they've had similar experiences in different areas. They don't have to be exactly alike.





> Again, I don't see that I enjoy things with sensors like my husbands any differently than I do with intuitives. It's not about my marriage that I'm getting annoyed with you. It's this narrow-minded view, that you have to share the same cognitive functions to appreciate the same things.


I never once said that you have to share the same cognitive functions to appreciate the same things, YOU are misinterpreting my meaning. I'm theorizing with the idea that @_Kathy Kane_ put out there is that Ne/Ni use the same patterns, but they have a different purpose/use of those same patterns. This is not me saying that you have to have Ni in order to understand and enjoy Ni perceptions. THIS is the miscommunication, I'm saying the same exact thing as Katy, but breaking it apart in-depth.

Again, apologize if you think I'm trying to box anything or anyone in. That's not my goal, I'm just playing with the idea of Kathy's thought. 



> I don't know how to explain that I GET what you are fucking saying. I got it! I got it! I got it! I got it! YOU are not listening to me. You really aren't. Kathy heard me. Ephemereality heard me. Why don't you hear me? *Yes, people with the same cognitive functions will share similar perspectives. Other extraverted sensors share a perspective. Despite your insistence to that Se and Si share sensing, they ARE NOT THE SAME group.* I'm not getting tied up in the literal understanding. Would you stop dismissing my perspective with "You are not understanding the abstract" bullshit. Disagreeing with you is not the same as not understanding the abstract concept. You are rude! Now I am getting upset because you are refusing to hear me. You know what? I can only conclude that you are an idiot at this point and that I have wasted my time trying to communicate with you. You have thrown sensors into a bracket and refuse to hear me.


I'm not trying to group them together, is which is where the miscommunication is coming from. They have two different perceptions, I understand that. But in theory, if Kathy is saying that Ni/Ne may see the same patterns and have different purposes, then why would Si/Se not see the same sensory information and have different purposes too? This is why I used you and your husband (ISFJ/ESTP) (Si/Se) as an example.



> You know what? I can only conclude that you are an idiot at this point and that I have wasted my time trying to communicate with you. You have thrown sensors into a bracket and refuse to hear me.


I do hear you, but we're both trying to get each other to understand each others point.



> You're so rude and dismissive and pretentious. You assume that I don't get it. I do get it. I disagree. I think it's time I block you as a poster. You are too intellectually dishonest to yourself and to others to communicate with.


I'm not the hostile one, but I guess I can apologize once again for making you feel a way I didn't intend to do.


----------



## Nightchill (Oct 19, 2013)

Aha said:


> Put more "data" points for Ne-dom and you will have multiplied amount of possibilities from which your Ji will gather much more potentially viable variants. I suppose, that is why Ne-doms are strong P and Ni-doms are J. But hey, it is much more interesting with many many many things to choose from


*boo* It's more interesting to see the essence and be done with it


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

Nightchill said:


> *boo* It's more interesting to see the essence and be done with it


Guess what type of N most writers have  

You create the essence


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> I wanted to convey that the way the functions act are the same regardless of being introverted or extraverted.


So what kind of differences between Ne and Ni claimed by others do you reject? Could you explain in more detail what features you consider the same and not different?


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

Nightchill said:


> LOL! Makes us Ne doms look completely daft


Why? Ni concentrates ideas - throwing stuff together and editing/streamlining it. Ne builds upon current ideas or makes more ideas/connections - expounding and expanding. Ni is making connections inward, Ne making connections outward.

Ni would be like sculpting: cutting away at a block of data until something new is formed. 
Ne would be like painting: adding more and more data to a previous idea until something new is formed.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Dastan said:


> So what kind of differences between Ne and Ni claimed by others do you reject? Could you explain in more detail what features you consider the same and not different?


Many of the descriptions for Ni make it into a magical, mystical, mysterious, fanciful function. I reject all of those adjectives to describe Ni.

In describing it that way some people are baffled about how Ni works. Most people can talk to an Ne dom and "get" Ne. I wanted to point out that the way Ni works is fundamentally the same as Ne, but we take our perceived information in opposite directions.

What we do the same is gather the same type of intangible information: ideas, concepts, emotions, energies, motives, etc. We also relate those pieces of data to other perceived intangible information. We attempt to fill in blank spots in our perception to complete an idea. We both have a detached and conceptual way of viewing ourselves and the world. 

What we do different is that Ne looks for any relations between the newly perceived information and other things they can perceive. Ni looks for the strongest and most relevant relations between the newly perceived information and other things they can perceive. Ne wants to move the info outward and explore it in a wide way. Ni wants to move the info inward and explore it in a personal and narrow way. Ne has a more positive expansive position and Ni has a more secure and containing position.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> Many of the descriptions for Ni make it into a magical, mystical, mysterious, fanciful function. I reject all of those adjectives to describe Ni.
> 
> In describing it that way some people are baffled about how Ni works. Most people can talk to an Ne dom and "get" Ne. I wanted to point out that the way Ni works is fundamentally the same as Ne, but we take our perceived information in opposite directions.
> 
> ...


Magical, mysterious etc. are rather placeholders for missing explanation than actual characteristics :wink:. I agree that this is not necessary and the basical way intuition works is the same. 

But narrowing inward and expanding outward, these are actual differences. And they may have long-term effects that create two different techniques of processing, or at least the general tendency for such. For example, Ne might be able to switch between disparate topics more easily and may have difficulties to develop more complex ideas about a single topic and such things.

But I think a really long list of specific differences is not possible. Intuition often is unpredictable and depends on many other factors than being introverted or extraverted. Even attributes like converging and diverging are not always reliable: imagine a group situation in which Ne quickly adapts to the needs of the present matter while Ni is still captured by personal thoughts and not really in tune with the situation.


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

Ni (INTJ)





Ni (INFJ)





Ne (ENTP)





Ne (ENFP)


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

RunForCover07 said:


> I never once said that you have to share the same cognitive functions to appreciate the same things, YOU are misinterpreting my meaning. I'm theorizing with the idea that @_Kathy Kane_ put out there is that Ne/Ni use the same patterns, but they have a different purpose/use of those same patterns. This is not me saying that you have to have Ni in order to understand and enjoy Ni perceptions. THIS is the miscommunication, I'm saying the same exact thing as Katy, but breaking it apart in-depth.
> 
> Again, apologize if you think I'm trying to box anything or anyone in. That's not my goal, I'm just playing with the idea of Kathy's thought.
> 
> ...












Everything you are saying tells me that you still don't see what I'm saying. Se and Ne are similar the same way Ni and Si are similar. If I'm hostile it's because of the last two conversations on another subforum. You immediately see this thread to confirm your conclusions that sensors are intuitives are fundamentally different. They're not. There are similarities and differences for different reasons. 

Ni and Si = similar as introverted perception therefore they will have some shared perspectives. 
Ne and Se = similar extroverted perception therefore they will have some shared perspectives. 
Ni and Ne = both intuitive perceiving therefore they will have some shared perspectives. 
Si and Se = both sensor perceiving therefore they will have some shared perspectives. 

My problem with your posts is you conclude that intuitives will automatically have more in common with other intuitives and sensors will have more in common with other sensors. That's where I am calling bullshit. You can harp on and on and on that I don't get what you are saying. I get what you are saying. I got what you were saying on the last two forums. You still don't believe that I get what you are saying. But I do and I am disagreeing with you. Intuitives and sensors SHARE cognitive functions somewhere in their stack. We're not all one thing and none of another. We aren't alien species. You've been pretty insistent that intuitives will only be happy with other intuitives. I opine that you are too set in your beliefs to consider the possibility that some of the people you have typed as intuitives are actually sensors. And I'm basing this on other discussions like your example of a shallow sensor that hit on you. 

If you want to argue this some more, find someone else.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> And I think there is a difference in symbolism and symbolism. Jung also claimed that Ti works with symbols. I think @_PaladinX_ can fill me in here as I think he provided with the original quote about a Ti type who conceptualized the world similar to a sun god riding his cart across the galaxy. Some such.


I'm sorry. I don't know which quote you are referring to.


----------



## Jerzy Urban (Apr 6, 2013)

Aha said:


> Now that's a miscalculation. Ne gathers much more. The problem is that someone must filter it. I agree with suggestion that it is best that Ne and Ni person work in a team


No, you're wrong. They both ''gather'' the same amount but use it differently. 

It is often mentioned that Ni users have this Eureka moment. This phenomenon is caused by Ni but not Ne. This is because (Once again, I will exaplin it with the use of Se) Se gathers the visible information from many sources and Ni narrows it all down to one and then everything starts to make sense. This is why Ni doms are so certain of their beliefs. Ni and Ne have been the focus of my MBTI study. ( I ignored Se and Si completely ). I came across many many different explanations of Ni. It seems like it is the hardest function for people to describe. 

I think Jung gives an example of some sort of a Diving Bird that dives into the water in order to catch a fish. He claims that an Ni user will most likely guess where the bird is going to come out of the water despite not being able to see the bird when he is underwater. An Ni user will somehow make a connection based on some abstract correlation. 

There are other examples of course. I heard a girl on this forum describing Ni by saying that Its like describing the inside of a house that you have never seen before. 

Lastly, another example I remember is a a PerC user claiming that the difference between Ni and Ne is that an Ni user will be able to foresee the behavior of an individual for the next 10 minutes whereas an Ne user will be able to foresee the behavior of a group for the next 30 seconds. 

The same point is made over and over again. The bottom line is that Ne is more broad and _Uses _more information form its decisions where as Ni is a lot more narrow/focused and more certain of the decisions that it establishes.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Odyssey said:


> No, you're wrong. They both ''gather'' the same amount but use it differently.
> 
> It is often mentioned that Ni users have this Eureka moment. This phenomenon is caused by Ni but not Ne. This is because (Once again, I will exaplin it with the use of Se) Se gathers the visible information from many sources and Ni narrows it all down to one and then everything starts to make sense. This is why Ni doms are so certain of their beliefs. Ni and Ne have been the focus of my MBTI study. ( I ignored Se and Si completely ). I came across many many different explanations of Ni. It seems like it is the hardest function for people to describe.
> 
> ...


I think actually Ne Ti experience "eureka" moments too, it happens when Ne fills last gap in Ti system, and everything just fit, suddenly. Ne does this almost subconsciously (it fills gaps in system/reasoning about a problem). I think many Ne Ti, Ti Ne users experience this feeling.

To the point: according to Jung, yeah, Ni is more narrow but deeper, and Ne is wider but more shallow. I'm not sure if it need more data to make a decision (afterall perceiving function is not about making decisions), it's rather like Ne provides more, but also more shallow data to the judging function (semantics :tongue.

Even more important so, Ni is subjective but Ne is objective. Not in an epistemological sense, afterall all human perception is subjective. Ne is naturally oriented towards objects (external to self), while Ni is oriented towards subject (individual person). Hence Ne takes object "as it is", "connecting dots" between external objects, while Ni takes objects and simultaneously adds subjective meaning to it, in order to "understand" it. 
At least that's how I see it. Though Ni "subjectivity" and Ne "objectivity" is a fact in Jungian system.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I'm sorry. I don't know which quote you are referring to.


All right, no problem. It was something about how Ti saw the world as symbolic.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Aha said:


> I understand what is Ni and Te and every function.
> What I wonder most, when emulating the processes of other functions in my mind, is how do you (non-Ti users) structurize all your information. How do you see the Universe in your mind.
> 
> Well, I am not sure about other Ti, but for me, I visualize all the graspable parts of the Universe and interconnections with all the events, phenomena, biology, galaxies, chemistry, abiogenesis, etc. in a big big model with me in it and you and you and you with all your atoms and sh...things. When Ne contorts something new, it goes through some kind of first stage of logic - probable/naaah. When it is probable, it is going through Ne again, and then emulates through Ti for the personal global framework.
> ...


I don't think of it as a "concrete structure" so much as a collection of intangible structures. Think of it as a model, within a model, within a model, within a model. For instance, my business thinking views the entire economy as a set of structures inside structures, where the higher order models are created by the lower order models and the lower order models are created by the higher order models. 

For instance, when you want to analyze a company, you're analyzing a "low order" system, which is constructed from the lower order systems within in. A company may consist of 5 functional departments, finance, research, operations, logistics and sales. Each of these are their own systems, constructed by individual people, who are themselves part of other systems unrelated to the business, such as families, communities, and so on. The actions of these people are aggregated within each functional department, and further aggregated in each company. 

Each company operates within an industry, which consists of multiple "company systems" and is more strongly related to some other industries than others. For instance the auto industry is more strongly related to the steel industry than the pharmaceutical industry. The industry system consists of the links between the systems that it is made up from, producers, suppliers, buyers, etc. 

Each industry operates within one or more national systems, which themselves consists of a myriad of other systems. Which are all aggregated into a global economy. This global economy is the result of every action taken by the underlying systems. It's all connected, but not related. It's not one huge system, it's many smaller systems linked together in different ways. The smaller systems can overlap in many ways, the cruise industry for instance has characteristics of transport/shipping, which again has characteristics of capital intensive industries, it also has characteristics of hospitality, which has characteristics of both capital intensive industries and service industries. 

Ni goes deeper and deeper, Ne goes wider and wider. So while you went Economics -> World -> Solar System -> Galaxy -> Universe. I went Economics -> Business -> Global economy - National economy -> Local economy -> Business units.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> And there is no introverted intuitive thinking type or introverted intuitive feeling type, there is just one type, introverted intuition. Nothing comes after intuition, there's only intuition. No T comes after N, there's just N. Chances are if you typed yourself INTJ, you should probably change to ISxJ or ITxP because INTJ does not make any sense what so ever.


Let's read Jung then.



> > "Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function. *Thus, thinking can readily pair with intuition as the auxiliary,* or indeed equally well with sensation [...] The resulting combinations present the familiar picture of, for instance, practical thinking allied with sensation, *speculative thinking forging ahead with intuition,* artistic intuition selecting and presenting its images with the help of feeling-values, *philosophical intuition systematizing its vision into comprehensible thought by means of a powerful intellect* [...]"
> >
> > *The unconscious functions likewise group themselves in patterns correlated with the conscious ones. Thus, the correlative of conscious, practical thinking, may be an unconscious intuitive-feeling attitude, with feeling under a stronger inhibition than intuition.*


Jung appears to be alluding to what is now known as the Ni-Te and Te-Ni axis and even Fi in the tertiary / inferior position. 

There goes your theory, flying out the window.




> He never said anything about intuition being about symbolism, or seeing things in this or that light. Because all of that shit is made up and spewed all over the place by communities like this who hasn't really read fuck all about it, really.





> > It peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to this particular form of expression - the attack of vertigo. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity, it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds, and finally fades.
> >
> > Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there like a psychic caput mortuum, *but that coexists with us and is constantly undergoing transformations which are inwardly connected with the general run of the events*, introverted intuition, through its perception of these inner processes, *can supply certain data which may be of the upmost importance for understanding what is going on in the world.*
> >
> > *Its prophetic foresight is explained by its relation to the archetypes, which represent the laws governing the course of all experienceable things.*


If that's not very clearly symbolism, what is it? A spell of schizophrenic fantasy? Literal delusion?



> And by art he means literally art. Painting and shit, writing poems, creating music.


I already debunked this moronic notion earlier but just for fun, source where he states that he meant this literally or provide the reasoning that lead you to assume this. I'm very curious. 



> Source: C.G. Jung, Collected Works, Volume 6, Page 330-407.


Amazing that we read the same exact words, yet what you came up with was so convoluted and far from what Jung was actually getting at. The woes of being a Ti dom eh?


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> Even more important so, Ni is subjective but Ne is objective. Not in an epistemological sense, afterall all human perception is subjective. Ne is naturally oriented towards objects (external to self), while Ni is oriented towards subject (individual person). Hence Ne takes object "as it is", "connecting dots" between external objects, while Ni takes objects and simultaneously adds subjective meaning to it, in order to "understand" it.
> At least that's how I see it. Though Ni "subjectivity" and Ne "objectivity" is a fact in Jungian system.


You are the first Ne-er I've come across that has seemed to understand that objective and subjective take on different meanings within the JCF model. You also described Ni without butchering or distorting what it is. Just wanted to bring attention to that and comment.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Se: Leads the psyche to scans the environment for something unknown or of interest --> Perceives the physical details of an object or the explicit, literal "happenings" of an event in the external world

Ni: Ignores the sensuous nature of that external object/event --> Notices a subjective reaction to that event and perceives it's symbolic cause and meaning relative to the collective unconscious --> Predicts implications of perceived meaning --> Stores symbolic impressions as a "map" of "what reality is" or could be.

Se: Adjusts behavior to "interact" with initially perceived object in tandem with its external context _or_ perceives another physical event, thus continuing the cycle.

______


Ne: Leads the psyche to scans the environment for something unknown or of interest --> Largely ignores the sensuous qualities of the external object, but notices it's "conceptual gist".

Si: Catalogues a subjective, physical reaction via the collective unconscious to the concept absorbed by Ne, thus perceiving "what exists".

Ne: Recalls and rearranges stored impressions that are understood as similar or relevant to an external context in order to generate hypothetical, simulated external-world situations or contexts, i.e. possibilities.

Si: Stores reactions to newly generated "conceptual gists" --> Compares and contrasts old and new impressions, thus expanding the "map" of "what exists" according to patterns of similarities.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

This is not the most politically correct example of how to compare/contrast the perception functions and something that I hear commonly when it comes to the subjective subject of beauty/attractiveness.

Ne/Si: "I'm not attracted to fat people."
Se/Ni: "How can you say that if you haven't met every fat person?"

Basically you could replace "fat" with black/white/asian…any physical variation in humans. There's also my personal favorite…"How can you know you're gay unless you've had sex with a woman?

Basically, Ne sweeps over the environment and sees that someone carries a lot of adipose tissue or has high levels of melanin in their skin. Obviously, any Ne type with "normally" functioning eyes sees the same color spectrum, sizes, shapes, etc. Jung writes,


> ince intuition, in the extraverted attitude, has a prevailingly objective orientation, it actually comes very near to sensation


. Yet, Ne doesn't linger too often on the sensory details. It just grasps the concepts: "fat woman", "skinny male", "blue eyes." Each time is perceives one of these concepts, it's Introverted Sensing that reacts subjectively. Contrary to Extraverted Sensation, again, we're not focusing on just how fat someone is, or just how colorful their eyes are. Si perceives how it causes you to "feel"…whether you like it or not. This is not the same as Introverted Feeling. It's about our physical, internal reaction to external concepts, not the ethical values.

As I mentioned before, Se is what focuses on the intensity of external world. It causes our attention to focus heavily so that we can experience to vibrancy or full details of something new. After that, it simply moves our attention to something else concrete in our environment; it doesn't register a subjective sensory reaction. That's why sometimes people find it bizarre to say that you are or aren't attracted to a whole category of people. In the case of Se, there's no personal bias associated with a conceptual category. That single discreet event in the external world is unique to itself. When the sensation is introduced to Ni (or suppressed by it?), it also becomes conceptualized. So, now, because Ni is perceiving an unconscious symbol, it's somewhat depersonalized. As Jung rights, 



> But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.



So, in this light, it sort of makes sense that someone with little Si could be confused by judging something that hasn't been experienced first hand. In saying this, I don't really mean that Se types, for example, don't have subjective reactions to the physical world. I'm just saying that they are less conscious, and less likely to interfere with the aims of Se, especially without sufficient Introverted Judgment.

To reiterate

Ne/Si : 
1.) Absorb a concept from the external world, then associate it with a personal sensory reaction.
2.) Rearrange sensory impressions to create a new hypothetical context, then register the new personal sensory reaction.

Se/Ni : 
1.) Absorb a sensation from the external world, then understand it's symbolic meaning and implications independent of surface criteria.
2.) Move on to another external sensation, then understand it's symbolic meanings and implications.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nevermind


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

surgery said:


> This is not the most politically correct example of how to compare/contrast the perception functions and something that I hear commonly when it comes to the subjective subject of beauty/attractiveness.
> 
> Ne/Si: "I'm not attracted to fat people."
> Se/Ni: "How can you say that if you haven't met every fat person?"


...Lol.

Overall your post makes sense, though. I think. It reminds me of something I was thinking about earlier. I kinda tend to mix up people with similar features. It's not that I'm unable to recognize faces, but I guess my mind don't focus much on the details in that way, so if their over-all appearance is similar (similar hair color, and similar body-shape, etc), they sort of become the same person in my mind. Unless I know them pretty well. I was wondering if that was a Ne-Si thing, but I'm not sure.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Nonsense said:


> ...Lol.
> 
> Overall your post makes sense, though. I think. It reminds me of something I was thinking about earlier. I kinda tend to mix up people with similar features. It's not that I'm unable to recognize faces, but I guess my mind don't focus much on the details in that way, so if their over-all appearance is similar (similar hair color, and similar body-shape, etc), they sort of become the same person in my mind. Unless I know them pretty well. I was wondering if that was a Ne-Si thing, but I'm not sure.


So, in other words, all Asians look the same to you .

Haha, jk I'm just trolling. I hear that kind of shiz all the time, from people of all different ethnicities, though. But, I have had similar experiences. I used to confuse Drew Berrymore and Cameron Diaz for one another all the time. Same with Kiera Knightly and Natalie Portman. They seemed like bascially the same people. The more I think about it though, I can't tell whether this tendency to generalize is really type related at all. 

I think if anything, Si dom/aux types might be more likely to experience a peculiar, profound interest in a particular celebrity or public figure and may be very aware of other factual information that relates to the same conceptual category. An personal example is Halle Berry. I spend a lot of time looking at pictures of her gathering info about her life. I also occasionally research celebs who are conceptually similar to her based on the same reason why Halle Berry interests me: she's "light skinned", and generally considered beautiful. Searching for images of Halle Berry and mentally storing my favorite ones is a function of Si. But, once I have those Si impressions stored, I can generate global/generalized theories about what it means to be beautiful" and what it means to be "black/biracial", "successful", etc. 

If I were an Ne-dom, I would probably generate a lot of cross contextual theories about beauty and proactively imagine those theories without much Judgment about how they relate to myself and others. If I were an Si-Dom, the theories would be undeveloped and unconcious. My psyche would be preoccupied with recalling memories of Halle Berry and the sensory impressions they create, only occasionally generating enough curiosity to seek out more information that's relevant to Halle Berry. As an Fi-Dom,however, I am mostly concerned with deciding whether Ne's theories about beauty and whether Si's impressions of what's beautiful are actually beneficial to people and myself, how people are affected by beauty, what's the best way to manage relationships with ugly or beautiful people, etc.​


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Octavian said:


> You are the first Ne-er I've come across that has seemed to understand that objective and subjective take on different meanings within the JCF model. You also described Ni without butchering or distorting what it is. Just wanted to bring attention to that and comment.


Unfortunately, it is both 'textbook' and not true. It is a regurgitation with limited annotation. I suppose that is why you liked it. 

Ne does not take an object 'as it is'... because taking an object at all is sensory cognition. Si takes a subjective dataset, and Ne perceives its conceptual/essential/archetypal aspects and interpretations. Theorizing, essentially. 

Ne quite literally is NOT "connecting dots" between objects. No. That would mean that Ne exists entirely in a sensory realm and that is quite definitionally untrue. Si connects sensory objects by association. Obviously. Definitionally. Perhaps it could be said that when Ne is able to engage the conceptual essence of objects, that Si is able to make broader connections... it is nevertheless sensory cognition that deals in sensory objects... though I hope I don't have to explain that further. 

Ne does precisely what Ni does, in that perceives the intangible aspects of any thing... how that thing reflects archetype or what meaning it possesses. Period. Ni does this subjectively, holistically, reductively.... to fulfill a particular role in cognition. Ne does this objectively, ad hoc, expansively.... to fulfill another role.

This Ne bias is most likely the result of natural frustration with variant forms of cognition, but also I might suggest the result of interacting with people often as not who were either low order Ne or not Ne at all - whom you nevertheless perceived as representing the function. 

I think you will very quickly find, when dealing with Ne types on your same standing, that 'connecting dots' between objects is a gross vulgarity in terms of Ne cognition. It is a flawed and superficial comprehension.


----------



## letmeknowwhenitworks (Sep 4, 2011)

Imagine multiple events, theories, ideas, etc. They all exist around us at the same time, seemingly interconnected. Each of them may or may not change or behave the same way, but when one changes, the others will eventually. The important question becomes "why/how?" You dig deeper. "Where's the common thread?" It's usually a fine thread but it's there. If you latch on to that thread, you become the master puppeteer and seer of all of these events. You will know them enough that you, in a sense, become them. You start thinking the way they do to predict how they will behave and speculate their modus operandi, correctly. If you're a virologist, for example, you start to ask yourself "as a virus, what would I do?" instead of "interesting...the virus does this or that". The "click" moment is when the fine thread is first spotted subconsciously. This is Ni. Then Te or Fe are used to support and project either the understanding or the manipulation of the event.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

I thought it is obvious that "object" doesn't mean physical object as you perceive it, some exact representation of perceived object. I can't even imagine that kind of cognition, having exact and accurate representation of what you see in mind. Object = anything you have in mind, be it representation of sensory object (_subjective_ representation), concept, or idea. I guess that's how Jung understood term "object".



arkigos said:


> Ne does precisely what Ni does, in that perceives the intangible aspects of any thing... how that thing reflects archetype or what meaning it possesses. Period. Ni does this subjectively, holistically, reductively.... to fulfill a particular role in cognition. Ne does this objectively, ad hoc, expansively.... to fulfill another role.


No, it doesn't perceive meaning _"it"_ possesses, if you really want to nitpick. It can only perceive what _your brain_ think is most representative for given object (remember: "object" doesn't necessarely mean "chair", or "dog" or anything physical at all). Like it perceives "general idea" of object, without details. I honestly don't know what is Si role in this process, Jung didn't say anything in that matter, as I recall. It is irrelevant. 



> "Ni does this subjectively, holistically, reductively.... to fulfill a particular role in cognition. Ne does this objectively, ad hoc, expansively.... to fulfill another role.".


Ni does this " holistically, reductively" _because_ it is subjective. Ne does this "ad hoc, expansively" _because_ it is objective.
Ni is subjective, hence it adjusts "intangible aspects of any thing", as you named it, to subject, resulting in subjective meaning. Ne is objective, hence it takes " intangible aspects of any thing", as you had to necessarily emphasize :laughing:, without any further processing, "as it is". As a result of this process Ni could be perceived as deeper but more narrow, and Ne could be perceived as wider but more shallow. So it works on the basis of original Jung's model. I don't know which model _You_ have in mind, and so I don't know if it corresponds with reality.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

They are both intuitive. 





That is my best answer. I win some sort of prize for this, right?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

surgery said:


> This is not the most politically correct example of how to compare/contrast the perception functions and something that I hear commonly when it comes to the subjective subject of beauty/attractiveness.
> 
> Ne/Si: "I'm not attracted to fat people."
> Se/Ni: "How can you say that if you haven't met every fat person?"
> ...


No, that is specifically not Ne and is rather specifically Si. It is like the definition of Si. Ne does not operate in the sensory realm any more than Ni does. When Jung said it was 'close to sensation', he meant in appearance. It 'looks' a lot like Se, or can. He then explains how it is specifically not. That property is actually incidental, as Ne is actually looking for intangible potentials. An observer sees them gawking at some object, and imagines that it is sensation, but it is actually intuition... existing in the realm of that which is not real. Jung goes on to say that Ne sees actuals as a prison.



wolf12345 said:


> I thought it is obvious that "object" doesn't mean physical object as you perceive it, some exact representation of perceived object. I can't even imagine that kind of cognition, having exact and accurate representation of what you see in mind. Object = anything you have in mind, be it representation of sensory object (_subjective_ representation), concept, or idea. I guess that's how Jung understood term "object".


I absolutely agree. 



wolf12345 said:


> No, it doesn't perceive meaning _"it"_ possesses, if you really want to nitpick. It can only perceive what _your brain_ think is most representative for given object (remember: "object" doesn't necessarely mean "chair", or "dog" or anything physical at all). Like it perceives "general idea" of object, without details. I honestly don't know what is Si role in this process, Jung didn't say anything in that matter, as I recall. It is irrelevant.


I agree, and value the nitpick. I actually very much value it, because I see this point as a crucial one. I like your wording on 'seeing the general idea' of the object, without details... yes. Si would presumably operate subconsciously, providing an 'archaic' and abstract rendering of the object in a sensory context. Thus, an Ne-dom perceives an object, in actuals, abstractly and subjectively... and, in potentials (which I think is perhaps better framed as dynamic 'essence'.. since Se views potentials in actuals, or dynamics in reality, Ne would perceive potentials/dynamics in the nature of a thing), objectively and rather concretely. 

I think the role of Si here is entirely relevant. Having observed Ne-doms at great length, the inferior subconscious Si is a massive consideration, and colors so much of their cognition. 



wolf12345 said:


> Ni does this " holistically, reductively" _because_ it is subjective. Ne does this "ad hoc, expansively" _because_ it is objective.
> Ni is subjective, hence it adjusts "intangible aspects of any thing", as you named it, to subject, resulting in subjective meaning. Ne is objective, hence it takes " intangible aspects of any thing", as you had to necessarily emphasize :laughing:, without any further processing, "as it is". As a result of this process Ni could be perceived as deeper but more narrow, and Ne could be perceived as wider but more shallow. So it works on the basis of original Jung's model. I don't know which model _You_ have in mind, and so I don't know if it corresponds with reality.


That is a fair explanation, sure. 

My only issue with your original post is the statement that Ne 'connects the dots' between objects. I was absolutely silly in how I went about that, and I apologize. I think the condescension toward Ne types from some NTJs on this forum has put me to my threshold. You gave a pretty canned response (purposefully, I am sure, and well articulated) and it met with approval as if the Ne finally figured it out. Ridiculous and, to me, patronizing. I am sure I've overblown it in my mind, but that is what set me off... especially since something in the quote was not, in my mind, correct... though oft repeated. 

I actually think it is Si that connects the dots between objects in the sense that is often used. Perhaps Ne is able to perceive the nature of objects in such a way that allows those Si associations to broaden? I don't know, but associating objects impressionistically is almost certainly Si.

It is possible that Ne utilizes this in attempting to reframe the idea of an object. 

There are sensory aspects to any object, sensory associations, and there are 'essential' aspects or conceptual aspects. S deals with the former, N the latter. Se is present and objective with it, thus presumably no seemingly random associations, presumably because those associations will be fairly traceable and on point. Si also makes associations, but abstractly and subjectively and thus difficult to trace and not on point, much like Ni. Thus, Ne 'randomness' is neither random nor Ne. 

Instead, like Se, Ne is on point. It 'perceives-into' the nature of the thing in an objective context. That is really all that needs to be said, though Jung emphasized potential... I think because Ne dismisses the actuals of the object... and thus seeing it's nature, can reposition it toward an ideal - or simply perceive it in an ideal or 'pure' conceptual form. Simple as that. No 'connecting the dots', no 'random associations', just perceiving the object in context of it's nature, objectively, and then other functions jump in and use that to do X and Y and Z. This of course quite easily lends itself to the grandest of theorizing, especially for NTP types. For NFP types, it causes the grandest of idealism... failing to comprehend the object in it's actuals, or in it's place... the Ne can imagine the object, and often does, in a sandbox... details aside, minutia aside, exceptions and facts aside. I think that Si provides this, actually. It would certainly stand to reason and definition... that sensorily rendering and contextualizing an 'N' object would fall to Si. Being abstract and impressionistic, it would take the form of associated objects, rather than literal or objective ones... a parable, or a fictional story, or whatever... that can be used to echo this objective, for lack of a better term, 'concept'. For example, Si might offer up all the objects that can be associated with the object... and Ne might see how their nature is shared. Stuff like that. 

That is the model I have in mind. I think it correlates to reality, though one can never be too sure.. that is why I put it out as I do, to be brainstormed upon.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

arkigos said:


> ... no 'random associations'...


MAY THAT STEREOTYPE DIE A THOUSAND PAINFUL DEATHS. (geez! this is not Ne at all.)

---

Other than that, though, I'm inclined to mildly disagree with your description of Ne. It could be I missed your point... 

I'll try to explain it in parallel with Se-- it seems that Se is aware, all at once, in an objective way, of all the sensory information coming in and how it 'fits' in the sense that Se can respond, quickly, to changes. I'm pretty sure (?) that Se doms, for example, would not have to invest deliberate effort in being aware of their surroundings as they drive.

Tentatively I would say this is the same for Ne, with ideas. There's just this constant flow of ideas-- the world is made of ideas-- everything is an idea, Si probably helps this, makes object input fuzzy abstract and archetypal, and Ne is constantly picking up on this in a broad, not-specifically-focused (except via Ji) way, and then can respond.

.....annnnd looking over what I just wrote-- nope. Nope, that doesn't feel right. 

Attempt #2: Learning in a foreign language, I appeared to experience what seemed to me like Ne gumming up and not working properly. I learned a concept, and instead of instantly "understanding" it, in a way that "fit" (and not via Ti, and I'm not sure how to describe what I mean), it settled uneasily into my brain, undigested. I re-read that same concept, but this time in English, and there was this immediate sense of... "grasping" it, of seeing how it worked and came together (in a _not_ Ti way-- I recognize my language here is all very Ti-ish it kills my brain trying to explain what Ne feels like). It wasn't component parts. It was a whole thing. 

The image my brain is providing to try to explain this is of the idea as a cloud of colored smoke filling my brain but I do not think that image is at all helpful.

Anyway blahhh I'm not explaining it well. It happens all the time, I don't really notice it happening, and I always took it for granted as just the way my brain worked until this foreign-language incident. I assume foreign language learning activates different parts of the brain and the Ne part didn't get a chance to shine, I would not be shocked if this was along the lines of right-left hemisphere type stuff.

And I do think it's possible, in a sense, to describe it as connecting the dots... not in a point-to-point matter, but rather, like seeing the material the dots are embedded in? maybe? it was sort of why i used a space-zoom-out analogy, although plums in clear pudding would possibly also work, except that there the distribution is random and, at least paired with Ti, the zoom-out effect also involves seeing the.... "arrangement" glah these words aren't what I'm looking for.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

An object that exists "in itself", once entering into the realm of perception becomes "apperceived" by intuition. Sensation is merely the raw sense datum relating to the object with regard to the physical senses, whereas intuition is the cognitive process of relating that information to the body of ideas one already possesses. This is the way in which sensations acquire _meanings._ Otherwise, sensation would just be sensations, and not "mean" anything to us.

Carl Jung observes two ways this occurs. In the extraverted attitude we apperceive sensations through objective ideas. An example of an objective idea is something like "Christianity" or "economics" or "China" or "April 24th." These are all ideas that have an independent existence from the subject. In the introverted attitude we apperceive sensations through subjective ideas, as what he called "images". It is useful at this point to read his extensive definition of "images" in his book, Psychological Types.

However, I will bottom-line the important ideas here.

The "image" is a kind of imaginary fantasy-image that is not received through the senses because it does not come from an external object, i.e., it has no "objective" existence. While sensations can and often do have an influence over these images because they effect the psyche as a whole, they are not actually in a direct causal relationship. It is instead the way in which we apperceive an "inner-object" which is the very primordial _"a priori"_ foundation of the psyche itself. These images occur "in the mind" so to speak, and very rarely are experienced as hallucinations. Most of the time we know the difference between these images and external reality.

In conclusion, both extraverted and introverted intuition are the "intuitive" cognitive process that attaches "meaning" and "significance" to sensations by means of "apperception."


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> An object that exists "in itself", once entering into the realm of perception becomes "apperceived" by intuition. Sensation is merely the raw sense datum relating to the object with regard to the physical senses, whereas intuition is the cognitive process of relating that information to the body of ideas one already possesses. This is the way in which sensations acquire _meanings._ Otherwise, sensation would just be sensations, and not "mean" anything to us.
> 
> Carl Jung observes two ways this occurs. In the extraverted attitude we apperceive sensations through objective ideas. An example of an objective idea is something like "Christianity" or "economics" or "China" or "April 24th." These are all ideas that have an independent existence from the subject. In the introverted attitude we apperceive sensations through subjective ideas, as what he called "images". It is useful at this point to read his extensive definition of "images" in his book, Psychological Types.
> 
> ...


This, first of all. Super important clarification.

@_Pelopra_, what I was saying, though perhaps not well, is that 'connect the dots', and 'random associations' is something attributed to Ne and often seen as the whole of Ne. It is not, as I am sure you agree. 

The problem I am wrestling with is that I believe, and I would say Jung stated, that N does not deal with anything physical or sensory at all, in and of itself. Jung said that Ne types might use language that approached sensation, but I think this is just a fault of language. You cannot talk in N. At least doing so in a pure fashion proves impossible or quite nearly so. You see how even Jung has to use tricks to do it. 

Having lived as an Ne in a social group with several other Ne types, I can tell you one thing above all. Ne types are fantastically out of touch with objective reality. The terms 'archaic' and 'mythological' are understatements. Objective cognition on the subject of actuals, of the reality of objects, is missing entirely. Replaced with a subjective web of abstracted associations and 'sensory archetypes'. When thinking of a person in a sensory context, an Ne is like the worst stereotype of Si. The object itself is diffused and lost as it is sorted into a mix of impressionistic private associations... and becomes just a 'symbol' of those things. In frank terms: a stereotype. Added to the mythology. The sensory paradigm. Just like what Ni does, but in the sensory realm.

I actually think that this is necessary for Ne. Rather, Ne and Se could not operate together. Both are, in a sense, existential. Devoid of necessarily subjective correlation. Ne sees an object in terms of its core conceptual nature. 

I suppose that could be said to be the reason Ne is seen to 'connect the dots', in that when it puts off the rendering of the object, and sees it for it's conceptual nature... this allows Si to collect impressions from the object, I presume, and connect it to another object subjectively. Ne will then de-render that object conceptually, again rather existentially... and the judging functions can take the whole thing and develop a theory or a meta ideal from. You see? Si 'connects the dots'. In fact, it is 100% ESSENTIAL to this. It is this, quite specifically. The idea is odd, but I think it is true. If true, it's hilarious because much of what we see as Ne would actually be Si. 

Am I seeing this wrong?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_Abraxas_

I dunno. That sounds like Thinking to me. It reminds me of:



> Consciousness seems to stream into us form outside in the form of sense-perceptions. We see, hear, taste, and smell the world, and so are conscious of the world. *Sense-perceptions tell us that something is. But they do not tell us what it is. This is told us not by the process of perception but by the process of apperception*, and this has a highly complex structure. Not that sense-perception is anything simple; only, its complex nature is not so much psychic as physiological. The complexity of apperception, on the other hand, is psychic. We can detect in it the cooperation of a number of psychic processes. Supposing we hear a noise whose nature seems to us unknown. After a while it becomes clear to us that the peculiar noise must come from air-bubbles rising in the pipes of the central heating: we have recognized the noise. This recognition derives from a process which we call thinking. *Thinking tells us what a thing is.*


The rest of the quoted passage, including a description of Intuition:


* *






> I have just called the noise “peculiar.” When I characterize something as “peculiar,” I am referring to the special feeling-tone which that thing has. The feeling-tone implies an evaluation.
> 
> The process of recognition can be conceived in essence as comparison and differentiation with the help of memory. When I see a fire, for instance, the light-stimulus conveys to me the idea “fire.” As there are countless memory-images of fire lying ready in my memory, these images enter into combination with the fire-image I have just received, and the process of comparing it with and differentiating it from these memory-images produces the recognition; that is to say, I finally establish in my mind the peculiarity of this particular image. In ordinary speech this process is called thinking.
> 
> ...





These quotes are from the definitions (Ch XI of Psychological Types) about Thinking and Feeling in which they are being described as apperceptive activities:



> *Thinking* is that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection. It *is an apperceptive activity* and, as such, must be differentiated into active and passive thought-activity. Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking an occurrence. In the former case, I submit the representation to a deliberate act of judgment; in the latter case, conceptual connections establish themselves, and judgments are formed which may; even contradict my aim—they may lack all harmony with my conscious objective, hence also, for me, any feeling of direction, although by an act of active apperception I may subsequently come to a recognition of their directedness. Active thinking would correspond, therefore, with my idea of directed thinking[70]. Passive thinking was inadequately characterized in my previous work as "phantasying" [71]. To-day I would term it intuitive thinking.





> *The nature of a feeling-valuation may be compared with intellectual apperception as an apperception of value. An active and a passive feeling-apperception can be distinguished.* The passive feeling-act is characterized by the fact that a content excites or attracts the feeling; it compels a feeling-participation on the part of the subject The active feeling-act, on the contrary, confers value from the subject—it is a deliberate evaluation of contents in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with intellectual intention. Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love. This latter state would be undirected, passive feeling, as, indeed, the ordinary colloquial term suggests, since it describes the former as activity and the latter as a condition. Undirected feeling is feeling-intuition. Thus, in the stricter sense, only the active, directed feeling should be termed rational: the passive is definitely irrational, since it establishes values without voluntary participation, occasionally even against the subject's intention.



For reference, here is the definition:



> *Apperception
> 
> *
> Is a psychic process by which a new content is articulated to similar already-existing contents in such a way as to be understood, apprehended, or clear [9]. We discriminate active from passive apperception; the former is a process by which the subject of himself, from his own motives, consciously and attentively apprehends a new content and assimilates it to another content standing in readiness; the latter is a process in which a new content from without (through the senses) or from within (from the unconscious) presses through into consciousness and, to a certain extent, compels attention and apprehension upon itself. In the former case, the accent of activity lies with the ego; in the latter, with the obtruding new content.


The blue part seems to possibly indicate a Sensation form of apperception.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@PaladinX,

Thank you for the clarification, I seem to have recalled the details incorrectly.

I apologize, I can't remember every definition in his book. >.<;

I was trying to recall his definition of images at the time I posted, I think.

Also, I had just finished reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and in my mind I thought I saw a similarity between what he was saying about intuition and what Jung was saying about intuition.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't be this lazy. I always forget to look things up and double-check.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

@arkigos

but, well, you're not really describing what Ne _is_, if it's not "connecting the dots". 
Which I can sympathize with since, as I have already whined about more than once, describing Ne is hard.

Your description-- or anti-description-- sounds extreme, it doesn't really explain how an Ne user functions without going around their life as a raging madman. And, well, yeah, I'm kinda spacey, but other than that I'm not a raging madman. I do have an actual real connection to reality. I'm looking at the bookcase next to me and I do see the books, before my attention shifts elsewhere. I'm not sure I'd say I see the books as archetypes of anything really, they're just there, and completely fail at holding my attention (unless i'm reading them. mmm, books.....). But, whatever, assuming my bridge to the sensory world is Si, you still haven't explained what my Ne is doing, and what it contributes to my existence...?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_PaladinX_,

You were absolutely right. I went back and checked. You nailed it.


In fact, in my reading I came across this useful section of a lecture that Jung gave in 1935 that also discusses the cognitive functions without bringing introversion or extraversion into it.

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...arl-jung-cognitive-functions.html#post5566074

You might find that interesting. I copied it myself verbatim from the book.

@_arkigos_, you might also want to check that out.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@Abraxas @PaladinX - 


* *




Jung's descriptions in that lecture are a rather tidy system. That is appealing. All the bases covered. Reductive. Elegant. Holistic. Simple. 

S = It is.
T = What it is.
F = What it is worth.
N = Where it comes and whither it goes. 

There are a number of problems with this. First, interrelations and associations are not mentioned. This is the core of perception. It also is clearly, and self-admittedly, unaware of what intuition actually is. It specifically fails to define it prior to fitting it into this system, the symmetry of which desperately requires it. 

Let's be up front. Jung was wrong about the mysticism of Intuition. The best he can hope for here is that there is data (of a sort) that is being perceived that allows for this without the need for mystic forces or perceptions.

However, I think that it is significant that he, as he claims, does not yet understand intuition. It is reading Psychological Types, that I feel I have finally gotten to the place where I understand it. It was in properly delineating Ne and Ni that this really fully came about. 

This all requires one to keep in mind the following:

1) Everyone perceives through the five senses. Everyone. You can see that something exists by looking at it. From this comes my first point, *we can only comprehend an object relative to other objects*. This is core. Suppose you were a consciousness, much like your own, existing in a void, having no cognition of anything else... of anything at all. If an object were to appear in this void... could you state its size? Could you assign it worth? Obviously not, and through this exercise we see that all Definition and Valuation are quite fundamentally relative. This causes a problem, because the perception of a thing alone cannot aid Rational cognition. At all. If you have two things in front of you, you might compare them. However, let's change the experiment and say that you have a lifetime of experiences, and objects to recall. Some object enters your view. How do you judge it? How do you define it? This causes some pause, as our mind moves to make some assumptions. We again are cognizant that Rational cognition is fundamentally one based on relation. So, to what do we related it, and quite importantly, HOW? 

The answer is fairly obvious. The other half of cognition. Perception. Not perception of objects through the five senses, nor through some mystical medium. I rather suspect that the actual acquisition and recollection of objects is quite mundane and not a part of cognition per se. I propose that this is done entirely through the five senses, and recalled by some other mechanism that is in all effect just memory. 

In perceiving these objects, which might be 'religion' or 'my house', in the mind, two things are absolutely required for proper intelligent cognition... 

1) To perceive in the mind the object as it is. 
2) To perceive its associations, irrationally. 

This actually creates a paradox, the solution to which is the key to comprehending the answer to the problems in Jung's model. The paradox is that one cannot perceive an object as it is, and also perceive its associations. You see, an object as it is is not like anything else. That is the point of seeing something as it is. You cannot truly perceive something as it is, and then say that it is like something else. 'As it is' is an existential concept. Actually, existentialism is at the core of this consideration... existentialism, in this context, actually is quite responsible for my comprehension of this point. It states that we view objects abstractly, and do not comprehend that we do. Take a word, for example. Let's say the word 'word'. We look at it and we see what it MEANS. We do not see what it IS. We see it symbolically, not literally. We cannot detach it from its meaning. Usually.

When I was a young boy, I was in a convenience store and I opened up a cooler door to pull out a bottle of Sprite. At this moment I had my first 'existential experience' or 'epiphany'. It was entirely involuntary, and caught me wildly off-guard. In a sudden horrible moment, the word "Sprite" lost all meaning and became an object with no relation or abstraction whatsoever. There were maybe 20 instances of the word in my field of vision. None of them meant anything, and they were actually no longer a word at all... or even letters. They were objects in space. Lines, and curves, and color. They were, quite simply, what they were and nothing at all what my mind had made them.

This redefines perceiving something for 'what it is', as Jung states. This brings to bear what that would truly entail. It suddenly gives it power, and purpose. It is greater, in a sense, that anything we might have dreamt intuition to be. To see something as it is? That is to break the bounds of the mind, of all conditioning, of all phobia and fear, of all intelligence, of all programming, even of all sentiment. In recalling this, I suddenly comprehended what Objectivity is... and in comprehending what Objectivity is, I comprehended what intuition is, and specifically what Ne is. 

Se, alone, is existential perception of objects. Objectivity, in the purest of senses. It is what it is. The profundity and power of which has just now occurred to us, or at least to me. Si is subjectivity, and it gives us the other necessary piece, which is association. We require it. Rational thought cannot, we determined, operate at all without it. Subjectivity is that thing which fell away from me as I looked at that bottle of liquid. Association, relation, comprehension of the SUBJECT to which the object belongs or has been placed. In another word: Context. Symbolism. I realize suddenly that I was wrong, @ephemereality, in stating that Ne deals in symbolism. I realize now that it cannot. I realize too why we say that this is abstract. It must be, because it must diffuse the object in order to make it one with the subject. I realize why we say it is impressionistic, because it must not be a conscious object in full relief. If it were, it would be the object as it is... and apart from the subject. It is existentialism.

Now, Rational thought can function. It can take that new data, transform it into cognition as an object, incorporate it into the subject, and juxtapose it objectively............. right? But, wait, no. How do you have Si and Se? How do you incorporate the object into the subject, and yet perceive it as it is, in full relief? Can I simultaneously perceive 'Sprite' as an object in space, and abstractly as a word? 

As I am considering this, I suddenly shout out, "HOLY FUCK, DYSLEXIA!"

I had long had an intuition that if it were to be tested, that Dyslexia would be tied to Se. I now comprehended why. All the Ne types I grew up with were natural with linguistics, and the Se types universally struggled. Even Ni types did not have the natural knack for language itself that Ne and Si types did... and it hit me like a brick. Se types are existentialists. Cognitive objectivity. It is what it is. I then understood. Art, dance! Objects in space. Music, texture. Ni types perceiving concepts as images, or colors, or textures. They are all fucking existential!! I comprehended Se. It isn't what I experienced, per se, but I understood the concept of Objective Perception.

"Taking data in via the five senses?" What a joke. No, it is a power as essential to sentience as intuition or logic or feeling. The ability to perceive things as they are. I don't know if dyslexia actually correlates to Se, but it served as a catalyst regardless.

I now understood how it would work. You cannot have Se and Si, and the answer is simple. Another dimension is required, and we already know what it is... though there is no good word for it. Essence? Concept? Notion? Intuition? Not intuition, the word has been swallowed up by our vernacular and is lost in many ways. Concept implies, at least to Jung, a Thinking orientation. Essence is perhaps best, of those options. Everything has an essence. This runs contrary to both its objective reality, and to it's subjective associations. Rather, it is another set of these things. It follows the same structure, because it must. Again, an object must be perceived as it is, but also abstracted into subjective association.... we know this because we have deduced that rational thought requires both.

It seemed so clear to me. Ne. I have an existential, Objective, perception of the essence of objects. Yes. That is it exactly. That is Ne. Perceiving things for what they are. Absolutely concrete, absolutely lacking association... because it must in order to perceive it as it is. However, not in terms of the object itself in reality, but of its essence. Of course, the next steps are clear. Ne and Se cannot coexist... because they are profoundly antagonistic. Ne must put off the object, must fail to perceive objective reality... must in FACT... and then it hits me again. It isn't just that Ne must suppress Se. No. Actually, we are left with another paradox and the solution solves it all.

Ne cannot perceive the essence of nothing, yet it cannot coexist with Se. It feels to me like attempting to both focus on an item and also past it. The object comes into relief, and the background fades and blurs. I cannot bring about Se in my cognition, not whatsoever. I realize that I perceive everything, objectively, in essence and not in actuals. It also occurs to me that this is not at all what Jung characterized as intuition. Prediction? No. Existentialist perception most certainly cannot predict, or tell us from whence something comes and whither it goes. It can only tell us what it is. Ne is thus NOT intuition, in that sense. Jung actually, was describing Pe and Pi in his dichotomy, or rather, specifically, Se and Ni... though so tersely and basically that most if not all of those reading him would be unable to comprehend this. 

No, Ne does NOT make associations. In fact, its power is in its ability to defy them. To see an object for what it is, in essence. It is rather Ni that makes associations, by diffusing and abstracting the object's essence into a subject... into correlations and associations and impressions. Ni is symbolism. However, a keen observer will already comprehend the next question... the still present paradox. Symbolism of what? An object. Haha! There it is. Symbolism of an object. How can one have symbolism without an object? How can one have an objects, if it has been abstracted already. Ni cannot attach to Si. One cannot render symbolism against a subject, but an object. Also, one cannot attach symbolism to the essence of an object... because symbolism IS that essence, diffused into association, into subject. Thus, Ni must attach to Se. 

This becomes a bit mind boggling as we consider Ne and Si. To me, it is clear... and the master stroke comes from it. I do not perceive the essence of an object. Ha! You get it? I perceive the essence of the subject. This perception is an object itself. A new one. 

Of course! Subjective correlations. Impressionistic and abstract perception of objects in reality. No longer objects... now an impression.... holistic. Then, perceived in essence. An object once again in full relief. Rational thought now has all that it needs. It has the essence, it has the actual, it has associations, it has the thing itself unassociated. Cognition. 

So, @Pelopra, what 'connected the dots'? We can say is that Si provides the dots, Ji organises them, Ne 'connects' them...? Fair enough. I'd hate to think I simply misunderstood, but I feel I have a good understanding now. Ne renders a new object. I'd say simply perceives one that already is, but that is not the case. No, it is that Ne renders a new object, a conceptual reality, a hypothesis, a theory, from 'the dots' (Si) that they are organizing (Ji). This object can be a complete pile of crap... and is fundamentally removed from objective reality. By design, in fact. It is a possibility... but not of the sort we might imagine.




TLDR: I was wrong, and @wolf12345 was quite right, at least ostensibly. In determining this, I came to some interesting realizations. One of which was that Jung's model of S and N in that lecture is perhaps Se and Ni, and that the key to fixing that model is incorporating Si and Ne. Namely, the abstraction of 'it exists' into subjective associations (Si), and intuition as a new object (Ne)... which isn't predictive, and is anything but mystical. Wouldn't Si fit into the scope of time? ..and Ne tells us what 'it is'?

This also begs the question: can Ni synthesize objective reality? Can it synthesize an object in cognition? Rather, can Ni perceive an object 'as it is', that it has synthesized via Ni? If Ne can be a new synthesized object, can Se? I rather think it can. If so, what does that tell us about the nature of Se objects ... of Se 'possibilities'?... and how does that tie into Ni/Se-Se/Ni mental idiosyncrasy and even mental illness.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Ne=Potentiality
Se=Actuality
Ni=What is not
Si=What was

S=It (is or was)= Discerning sensations
N=It (could or could not be)= Visual Possibilities

If cognitive functions are ingrained into reality then they are not mystical. To further explain, anything that exists or could be is not mystical because it is a property of reality. Jung was intrigued by intuition because he couldnt fully grasp it, hence the mystical nature he perceived. Those who claim something is mystical are only claiming their lack of understanding. Good thing Jung understood that there was more to be learned about intuition that he himself couldnt even touch.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@arkigos I read and that was a lot to digest but some comments:


> 1) Everyone perceives through the five senses. Everyone. You can see that something exists by looking at it. From this comes my first point, we can only comprehend an object relative to other objects. This is core. Suppose you were a consciousness, much like your own, existing in a void, having no cognition of anything else... of anything at all. If an object were to appear in this void... could you state its size? Could you assign it worth? Obviously not, and through this exercise we see that all Definition and Valuation are quite fundamentally relative. This causes a problem, because the perception of a thing alone cannot aid Rational cognition. At all. If you have two things in front of you, you might compare them. However, let's change the experiment and say that you have a lifetime of experiences, and objects to recall. Some object enters your view. How do you judge it? How do you define it? This causes some pause, as our mind moves to make some assumptions. We again are cognizant that Rational cognition is fundamentally one based on relation. So, to what do we related it, and quite importantly, HOW?


This seems to be a linguistic problem and implicitly so, language and how it relates to cognition forms a complicated connection when trying to understand cognitive functions. When I think of Se and you give me this object to observe in the void, the object is the object itself. For simplicity's sake let's say it's a chair. Se would see just that, a chair. It sees its properties holistically: 4 legs, made of wood etc. Now, to me, the way I understand Rationality is that Rationality would give this chair a name. It is actually a chair and not a stool or a sofa. When I have given it a name through the act of Rational thought, this name also now carries various implied properties which is why your use of the "essence" is somewhat problematic here, because I think your idea of "essence" is highly Ti-biased. Let me explain by comparing to Plato and his idealism. 

Plato as I am sure you are quite aware and are familiar with, thought that all objects contain an essential property wherein the object defines itself by simply being itself which is why we can separate this object from other objects. This seems to be what you were trying to get at that Rationality requires some form of relative comparison, yes? So in the case of the chair, when we think of the word "chair" it is indeed an abstract idea because we recall this ideal state of the object with 4 legs, made out of wood etc. The fact that I can merely write the word "chair" and everyone who is familiar with the English language knows what it means is suggestive of this. As Jung points out in the quote provided by @PaladinX, even though this indeed is abstract thought, it is not intuition but Thinking. The reason for this is because you are stating how something is, at least in the context of the void, since you are giving this object a name and when doing so you must also assign it various properties that defines the object. I would argue that this is an inherent problem at least in the English language, because it is fundamentally built around an idea of stating the nature of things, to define them. To speak language in itself means awareness and use of Thinking as a process. This is also why I think Jung created this particular order of "development" of the functions being Sensation, Thinking, Feeling and Intuition. 

This is why Sensation can be difficult to observe in the English language because if you showed me this chair in this void and I am familiar with the term "chair" and all it entails, then I, as an Se type, will indeed state that what I see is a chair. This is why the video where people are made to write down descriptions of a mug in order to exemplify Intuition and Sensation fails, precisely because if I as an Ni dominant type just wrote that it's a mug, people would think it is exemplary of me being an S type, but if someone who writes about the fundamental mechanics of the mug and what makes a mug, they will be labeled an N type. Yet my mind when I am too tired to think about something deeper or when I simply do not see anything else because you asked me to describe what I see, will fall back on inferior Sensation and I will say it's a bloody fucking mug. This is the problem of language and why these kinds of exercises are ultimately meaningless when actually studying people's cognition but I digress on that point. 

So what makes my use of the word "mug" different than someone like Plato when he speaks of the word "mug"? Because I am stating what it is rather than what it is, and the only way we can discern that is the rest of the context in how I reason around the mug. Hence, language limitations. This becomes quite obvious actually in how you use the word "essence" here, because it indeed seems to go back to some Ti idea that you have where you seek some Rational abstraction of making sense of functions and their various perspectives. I understand what you mean by "essence" also being symbolic, but it makes me recall that quote someone provided who is apparently not PaladinX about how Ti types also understand things through symbolism (Jung used this particular word or similar to it, rather than speaking about "images" that he usually does when referring to Intuition), and it reminds me of some previous posts in this thread but @eydimork's in particular, about how symbolism is tied to Feeling, not Intuition. 

What does all this mean? Language sucks. Words such as "essence" and "symbolism" are meaningless in themselves and I think this particular approach to language is very P-dominant driven, because meaning changes in that a word's definition is different based on context. I can recognize that way you use "essence" differs from my understanding of "essence". I require Rational thought to make sense of it so don't get me wrong there, I don't claim to be without Rational thought (I would likely have problems to operate in this world if I did), but in particular what I deny then, is that objects can truly be defined or told how they are. 

So the obvious way to get around this problem is to define how we use our respective terminology which ironically requires the act of Rationality, but I think seeking context-driven Rationality is probably a good example of how Rationality appears like in auxiliary position. Rationality serves Irrationality or more precisely, we can only judge after we've perceived. This is one of the most difficult problems I have when wrapping my head around how judging dominants work, because there is a certain point where they at least to me in my naive understanding of it, seem to derive definitions somewhat a priori. It's almost as if they know how things are before they have actually been told what it is they are supposed to tell how things are. 

The tl;dr version is that there is a troublesome overlap between Sensation and Thinking as cognitive processes and it is a linguistic problem, and a lot of problems that come after this in relation to cognition as a whole has to do with this one overlap. 



> This actually creates a paradox, the solution to which is the key to comprehending the answer to the problems in Jung's model. The paradox is that one cannot perceive an object as it is, and also perceive its associations. You see, an object as it is is not like anything else. That is the point of seeing something as it is. You cannot truly perceive something as it is, and then say that it is like something else. 'As it is' is an existential concept. Actually, existentialism is at the core of this consideration... existentialism, in this context, actually is quite responsible for my comprehension of this point. It states that we view objects abstractly, and do not comprehend that we do. Take a word, for example. Let's say the word 'word'. We look at it and we see what it MEANS. We do not see what it IS. We see it symbolically, not literally. We cannot detach it from its meaning. Usually.
> 
> When I was a young boy, I was in a convenience store and I opened up a cooler door to pull out a bottle of Sprite. At this moment I had my first 'existential experience' or 'epiphany'. It was entirely involuntary, and caught me wildly off-guard. In a sudden horrible moment, the word "Sprite" lost all meaning and became an object with no relation or abstraction whatsoever. There were maybe 20 instances of the word in my field of vision. None of them meant anything, and they were actually no longer a word at all... or even letters. They were objects in space. Lines, and curves, and color. They were, quite simply, what they were and nothing at all what my mind had made them.


I think these two passages here exemplify my previous point I was trying to make, but particularly your claim that you for example have problems to not understand a word without also understand what the word attempts to define. 

It is actually quite peculiar. This is why a lot of judging dominant types, both Thinkers and Feelers, often and easily mistype as intuitives I think, because they mistake their ability to understand abstract properties within the realms of Thinking or Feeling as the act of Intuition. Nay, Perception as a whole is in fact simpler than this. It is indeed irrational. 

The biggest problem comes when we realize that people are also in possession of all four functions and are capable of manifesting them all at a basic fundamental level at any given point in time, and that functions indeed prefer to operate in pairs. When studying people's cognition it is therefore rarely the result of one function that we are seeing, even though well-differentiated individuals may have such a strong preference that it simply overshadows everything else. 


> Se, alone, is existential perception of objects. Objectivity, in the purest of senses. It is what it is.


I agree with this, and this also becomes troublesome again when considering the use of "essence" because to an Se dominant type, isn't the essence of a thing exactly seeing it for what it is so it is nothing more and nothing less? I see a car. It is just that, a car, all it entails in this very objective moment in which it was observed. I wish people could stop think this is some simplistic way of viewing reality (thinking of that "I hate ESxP thread" that received a lot of recent attention) because it is not. It's very abstract, to see and experience all the detail. Let's take a painting for example, to experience all the fine nuances of the brush strokes. How the fuck is that not abstract when you later describe this process and how a stroke affects the painting to an apprentice painter? 


> Can I simultaneously perceive 'Sprite' as an object in space, and abstractly as a word?


That's an interesting question in relation to the function of the auxiliary, but I think it's best answered by the STs though I suspect the answer may in fact be quite simple: 

I see this bottle of Sprite, I give it a name. Sprite. Bottle and Sprite become synonymous. I can't speak for Si, but at least the way I make sense of it with Se and Te would be that I see this bottle, it has this label on it and it looks such and such way as I perceive it, I recognize this label as a known soft drink called Sprite so momentarily then, I am observing a bottle of Sprite. Would I also drink this bottle of Sprite, I can experience the taste of Sprite. Obviously, not just taste as in tasting it with my 5 senses because clearly we all do that when we drink a soft drink, but I focus on this particular sensation of how it really feels like and it becomes a part of the experience of what "Sprite" the soft drink as a logical idea entails. I think that's the best way I can describe it. Here we can also see why Thinking is a more valued process to me than Sensation in this particular context, because I use my Sensation and incorporate that experience with Thinking. I might also for example say, would this drink actually not taste like Sprite at all, that it is not Sprite that I am experiencing. Sensation experience is then matched against logical systems, hence also Te. It's a simultaneous process. Let's say then that I was offered this drink whose name I don't know and I'm later asked what drink it is. This clearly involves both the act of Sensation and Thinking in that I must first truly dwell on my sensational experience but then match it against some logical system I know or at least justify it using my own logic as to why this is. 



> No, Ne does NOT make associations. In fact, its power is in its ability to defy them. To see an object for what it is, in essence. It is rather Ni that makes associations, by diffusing and abstracting the object's essence into a subject... into correlations and associations and impressions. Ni is symbolism. However, a keen observer will already comprehend the next question... the still present paradox. Symbolism of what? An object. Haha! There it is. Symbolism of an object. How can one have symbolism without an object? How can one have an objects, if it has been abstracted already. Ni cannot attach to Si. One cannot render symbolism against a subject, but an object. Also, one cannot attach symbolism to the essence of an object... because symbolism IS that essence, diffused into association, into subject. Thus, Ni must attach to Se.
> 
> This becomes a bit mind boggling as we consider Ne and Si. To me, it is clear... and the master stroke comes from it. I do not perceive the essence of an object. Ha! You get it? I perceive the essence of the subject. This perception is an object itself. A new one.
> 
> Of course! Subjective correlations. Impressionistic and abstract perception of objects in reality. No longer objects... now an impression.... holistic. Then, perceived in essence. An object once again in full relief. Rational thought now has all that it needs. It has the essence, it has the actual, it has associations, it has the thing itself unassociated. Cognition.


As much as your post sometimes comes off as something difficult for me to grasp, I wonder if it's because I'm so naturally Ti-antagonistic (and tired), this makes vague sense though I still don't understand how I'd inverse Se and somehow get Ne at the other end. Maybe I'll never understand Ne, who knows. 


> This also begs the question: can Ni synthesize objective reality? Can it synthesize an object in cognition? Rather, can Ni perceive an object 'as it is', that it has synthesized via Ni? If Ne can be a new synthesized object, can Se? I rather think it can. If so, what does that tell us about the nature of Se objects ... of Se 'possibilities'?... and how does that tie into Ni/Se-Se/Ni mental idiosyncrasy and even mental illness.


My gut reaction to that is that Ni _is_ synthetization along with Si being Pi. That's what socionics says too, and I largely agree on that aspect of how socionics understands Pi anyway. 

Let's go back to that chair example again, the chair in the void. Now if Sensation says that it's a chair because a chair is a chair, and Thinking too says it's a chair because of XYZ properties innate to the word chair, Feeling would say that it seems nice or whatever, then Intuition tells us what a chair means or what it's being used for. We sit on it or more correctly, I can see how one can sit on a chair, just like if you drop an apple and let it fall to the ground I'll see it on the ground already, rather than the process of an apple falling. 

Socionics describes Pe as static and Pi as dynamic. So in the case of the apple, if we were filming it falling to the ground Pe would see each frame only. Pi would be the non-space between the frames that allows us to put these frames together and actually make it into a film rather than a collected number of stills all indicating some form of movement within them. 

How the hell that works with Ne-Si though I have no fucking clue since Pi is Ni to me, to perceive that space between frames. I've referred to the Japanese concept of ma as it is used in art before and it is again a very apt way of understanding Ni at least, but I don't know how it makes sense for Si.

Anyway, what you get then is that Pi takes all these frames and synthesize them into actual movement. You don't just have a bunch of stills anymore, but you actually have a film. It moves in real time. I think this is also why static-dynamic as is observed in terms of how types use language differs, in that dynamic types are far more likely to describe things in terms of an on-going process. It's actually quite uncanny because one thing I noticed over time when chatting to people over Skype is how I have a tendency to use present particles. 

This is relevant precisely because of the film analogy. Still shots don't move or suggest movement. Present particles do. Indeed, static types are also often described as using simple present in language.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@arkigos


I have responded with my reactions to each thing you've written rather than as to speak to your point as a whole. Playing a sort of devil's advocate as I go:


* *






arkigos said:


> Jung's descriptions in that lecture are a rather tidy system. That is appealing. All the bases covered. Reductive. Elegant. Holistic. Simple.
> 
> S = It is.
> T = What it is.
> ...


Why is this not related to Thinking or Intuition? It reminds me of this quote:_The process of recognition can be conceived in essence as comparison and differentiation with the help of memory. When I see a fire, for instance, the light-stimulus conveys to me the idea “fire.” As there are countless memory-images of fire lying ready in my memory, these images enter into combination with the fire-image I have just received, and the process of comparing it with and differentiating it from these memory-images produces the recognition; that is to say, I finally establish in my mind the peculiarity of this particular image. In ordinary speech this process is called thinking._​
That is a simplistic example, thinking about one thing. But if you extrapolate that into a more complex concept, you would have more interrelationships and associations.

Here is another quote about associations:_Concrete intuition carries perceptions which are concerned with the actuality of things, while abstract intuition transmits the perceptions of ideational associations._​



> *This is the core of perception.*


How did you reach that conclusion?



> It also is clearly, and self-admittedly, *unaware of what intuition actually is.* It specifically fails to define it prior to fitting it into this system, the symmetry of which desperately requires it.


According to who? How did you reach that conclusion? What is intuition, actually? Is this according to your understanding of intuition or an objective one? How do you know that you are trying to describe the same phenomenon? Maybe you both are using the same label to describe two different, albeit somewhat related, phenomena?



> Let's be up front. Jung was wrong about the mysticism of Intuition. The best he can hope for here is that there is data (of a sort) that is being perceived that allows for this without the need for mystic forces or perceptions.
> 
> However, I think that it is significant that he, as he claims, does not yet understand intuition. It is reading Psychological Types, that I feel I have finally gotten to the place where I understand it. It was in properly delineating Ne and Ni that this really fully came about.


Why is this relevant? It sounds like you are using the word "mystical" to suggest that Jung did not understand intuition, which gives you wiggle room to insert your own understanding. But how do you know that your interpretation is any more correct?

I guess I just don't understand how you are making the connection that because Jung describes Intuition as mystical that it means that he does not understand what Intuition is. I think there is a difference between understanding what something is and how it works.



> This all requires one to keep in mind the following:
> 
> 1) Everyone perceives through the five senses. Everyone. You can see that something exists by looking at it.
> From this comes my first point, *we can only comprehend an object relative to other objects*. This is core. Suppose you were a consciousness, much like your own, existing in a void, having no cognition of anything else... of anything at all. If an object were to appear in this void... could you state its size? Could you assign it worth? Obviously not, and through this exercise we see that all Definition and Valuation are quite fundamentally relative. This causes a problem, because the perception of a thing alone cannot aid Rational cognition. At all. If you have two things in front of you, you might compare them. However, let's change the experiment and say that you have a lifetime of experiences, and objects to recall. Some object enters your view. How do you judge it? How do you define it? This causes some pause, as our mind moves to make some assumptions. We again are cognizant that Rational cognition is fundamentally one based on relation. So, to what do we related it, and quite importantly, HOW?


This sounds like you're talking about thinking to me.



> The answer is fairly obvious. The other half of cognition. Perception. Not perception of objects through the five senses, nor through some mystical medium. I rather suspect that the actual acquisition and recollection of objects is quite mundane and not a part of cognition per se. I propose that this is done entirely through the five senses, and recalled by some other mechanism that is in all effect just memory.


This reminds me of:_The important fact about consciousness is that nothing can be conscious without an ego to which it refers. If something is not related to the ego then it is not conscious. Therefore you can define consciousness as a relation of psychic facts to the ego. What is that ego? *The ego is a complex datum which is constituted first of all by a general awareness of your body, of your existence, and secondly by your memory data; you have a certain idea of having been, a long series of memories.* Those two are the main constituents of what we call the ego. Therefore you can call the ego a complex of psychic facts. This complex has a great power of attraction, like a magnet; it attracts contents from the unconscious, from that dark realm of which we know nothing; it also attracts impressions from the outside, and when they enter into association with the ego they are conscious. If they do not, they are not conscious._​
And:


* *




Consciousness seems to stream into us form outside in the form of sense-perceptions. We see, hear, taste, and smell the world, and so are conscious of the world. Sense-perceptions tell us that something is. But they do not tell us what it is. This is told us not by the process of perception but by the process of apperception, and this has a highly complex structure. Not that sense-perception is anything simple; only, its complex nature is not so much psychic as physiological. The complexity of apperception, on the other hand, is psychic. We can detect in it the cooperation of a number of psychic processes. *Supposing we hear a noise whose nature seems to us unknown. After a while it becomes clear to us that the peculiar noise must come from air-bubbles rising in the pipes of the central heating: we have recognized the noise. This recognition derives from a process which we call thinking. Thinking tells us what a thing is.*

I have just called the noise “peculiar.” When I characterize something as “peculiar,” I am referring to the special feeling-tone which that thing has. The feeling-tone implies an evaluation.
*
The process of recognition can be conceived in essence as comparison and differentiation with the help of memory. When I see a fire, for instance, the light-stimulus conveys to me the idea “fire.”* As there are countless memory-images of fire lying ready in my memory, these images enter into combination with the fire-image I have just received, and *the process of comparing it with and differentiating it from these memory-images produces the recognition*; that is to say, I finally establish in my mind the peculiarity of this particular image. In ordinary speech this process is called thinking.

*The process of evaluation is different. The fire I see arouses emotional reactions of a pleasant or unpleasant nature, and the memory-images thus stimulated bring with them concomitant emotional phenomena which are known as feeling-tones.* In this way an object appears to us as pleasant, desirable, and beautiful, or as unpleasant, disgusting, ugly, and so on. In ordinary speech this process is called feeling.

The intuitive process is neither one of sense-perception, nor of thinking, nor yet of feeling, although language shows a regrettable lack of discrimination in this respect. One person will exclaim: “I can see the whole house burning down already!” Another will say: “It is as certain as two and two make four that there will be a disaster if a fire breaks out here.” A third will say: “I have the feeling that this fire will lead to catastrophe.” According to their respective temperaments, the one speaks of his intuition as a distinct seeing, that is he makes a sense-perception of it. The other designates it as thinking: “One has only to reflect, and then it is quite clear what the consequences will be.” The third, under the stress of emotion, calls his intuition a process of feeling. But intuition, as I conceive it, is one of the basic functions of the psyche, namely, perception of the possibilities inherent in a situation. It is probably due to the insufficient development of language that “feeling,” “sensation,” and “intuition” are still confused in German, while sentiment and sensation in French, and “feeling” and “sensation” in English are absolutely distinct, in contrast to sentiment and “feeling,” which are sometimes used as auxiliary words for “intuition.” Recently, however, “intuition” has begun to be commonly used in English speech.

As further contents of consciousness, we can also distinguish volitional processes and instinctual processes. The former are defined as directed impulses, based on apperception, which are at the disposal of so-called free will. The latter are impulses originating in the unconscious or directly in the body and are characterized by lack of freedom and by compulsiveness.

Apperceptive processes may be either directed or undirected. In the former case we speak of “attention,” in the latter case of “fantasy” or dreaming.” The directed processes are rational the undirected irrational. To these last-named processes we must add—as the seventh category of contents of consciousness—dreams. In some respects dreams are like conscious fantasies that they have an undirected, irrational character. But they differ inasmuch as their cause, course, and aim are, at first, very obscure. I accord them the dignity of coming into the category of conscious contents because they are the most important and most obvious results of unconscious psychic processes obtruding themselves upon consciousness. These seven categories probably give a somewhat superficial survey of the contents of consciousness, but they are sufficient for our purpose.







> In perceiving these objects, which might be 'religion' or 'my house', in the mind, two things are absolutely required for proper intelligent cognition...
> 
> 1) To perceive in the mind the object as it is.
> 2) To perceive its associations, irrationally.


Thinking and Feeling also have irrational sides. The irrational side to Thinking is called intuitive-thinking. In my opinion, it sounds like what you might call intuition is actually intuitive-thinking.

Here's another quote that comes to mind about associations and thinking:*Thinking* is the psychological function which, following its own laws, *brings the contents of ideation into conceptual connection with one another.* It is an apperceptive activity, and as such may be divided into active and passive thinking. Active thinking is an act of the will, passive thinking is a mere occurrence. In the former case, I submit the contents of ideation to a voluntary act of judgment; in the latter, conceptual connections establish themselves of their own accord, and judgments are formed what may even contradict my intention. They are not consonant with my aim and therefore, for me, lack any sense of direction, although I may afterwards recognize their directedness through an act of active apperception. Active thinking, accordingly, would correspond to my concept of directed thinking. Passive thinking was inadequately described in my previous work as "fantasy thinking." Today I would call it intuitive thinking.​


> This actually creates a paradox, the solution to which is the key to comprehending the answer to the problems in Jung's model. The paradox is that one cannot perceive an object as it is, and also perceive its associations. You see, an object as it is is not like anything else. That is the point of seeing something as it is. You cannot truly perceive something as it is, and then say that it is like something else. 'As it is' is an existential concept. Actually, existentialism is at the core of this consideration... existentialism, in this context, actually is quite responsible for my comprehension of this point. It states that we view objects abstractly, and do not comprehend that we do. Take a word, for example. Let's say the word 'word'. *We look at it and we see what it MEANS.* We do not see what it IS. We see it symbolically, not literally. *We cannot detach it from its meaning*. Usually.


I'm not sure I follow you're reasoning here, but I feel that you are over-thinking something. The bolded part sounds foreign to me. This could be because of whatever type I might be may be vastly different from yours, or perhaps due to me being on the autism spectrum, but I don't look at words and see meaning necessarily. For me, a word's meaning is almost always derived from the context of its use and intention behind it. Just like how I picked on mysticism. I don't even know what the word actually means. But then others were trying to figure out what I was getting at from the meaning of the word rather than the idea that I felt that the word represented in the rhetorical situation. It was actually a very interesting experience for me. But I digress.

NOTE: There is more to what I want to say about words and meaning, but I can quite think of how to articulate it properly at this time.




I will maybe respond to the rest later. It is a lot to respond to and it's taken me half the day to get this far. 

It is very fascinating nonetheless.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

By "connecting the dots" I mean connecting ideas, concepts, mental images. Those kind of connections may create better understanding of given subject, it may also result in a new way of looking on things, or it may help to create some new idea/way of doing things/whatever. It perpahs could be visually represented by something like this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nRJbHvDT_zU/T5GrPjiVtPI/AAAAAAAAGQs/mFkF1aZtvkw/s1600/thumbnail.aspx.jpg
Various ideas/concepts/images (I just call them "objects") are somehow related to each other, and one's mind is able to grasp all those connections and relations at once. Those "webs" have expansive nature, so this model is changing with time, and there might be many "webs" regarding one issue.
I think Ne does this, just because it is... expansive by it's nature (extroverted nature). It's natural state is constant growth, perhaps?

The only thing that puzzles me, is if Ne actually does this kind of "dot connecting" alone, or only when paired with introverted thinking?.... Or am I completely wrong and it is Ni afterall?

I'm as far as possible from the fusing of the stereotype of Ne randomness. So I absolutely agree on "no 'random associations'" thing, but I'm not really convinced if Ne isn't actually connecting ideas ("objects") in some sense... I think it is at least able to create some kind of correlation between different ideas?
Yes, it is just intuition, which only role is to "reveal" or "explore" meaning of given object, but it is also extraverted intuition - which means it is in the state of constant growth.

I'm sure that Si plays important role in NTP cognition process, but I think it doesn't play any important role in what I wrote above - simply because Si is purely physical, and in this way experienced, and all this "dot connecting" thing is highly conceptual.

To a lesser extent, this "dot connecting" might be experienced when you notice relationships between things, which leads to an understanding of something. For example, you see an ambulance in front of his property, and immediately you know that your mother fell ill, even before you consciously analyze it. This, however, IS physical, so in fact it can actually be Si.



I'm also starting to think it is impossible to create one common definition of Ne, because it may play so many different roles, depending on the position in the cognitive process. It could be very different for, let's say, creative role in INTP cognitive process (aux function), or base role in ENTP cognitive process (1st function).


Ne is static simply because it perceives "objects" and those objects are simultaneously not related to subject and not embedded in the stream of time, therefore it "jumps" from object to object. It tries to perceive "static" nature of given object.
Ni is dynamic because everything it perceives is subjective and embedded in the stream of time, so it is experienced as a constant flow of... ideas?... which you cannot say about Ne. This, however, does not mean that Ne types cannot plan future or productively think about future, as some suggest.
And I probably have causal-deterministic cognition, hence my every sentence contains words such as "because" or "hence".



What you wrote about language is all true, though it is true regarding to all philosophical reasoning, not specifically Jung. It would cause me too much pain to comment all this in english, but read Wittgenstein! 




> Attempt #2: Learning in a foreign language, I appeared to experience what seemed to me like Ne gumming up and not working properly. I learned a concept, and instead of instantly "understanding" it, in a way that "fit" (and not via Ti, and I'm not sure how to describe what I mean), it settled uneasily into my brain, undigested. I re-read that same concept, but this time in English, and there was this immediate sense of... "grasping" it, of seeing how it worked and came together (in a not Ti way-- I recognize my language here is all very Ti-ish it kills my brain trying to explain what Ne feels like). It wasn't component parts. It was a whole thing.


Could you elaborate a bit about this, please? This feeling of "grasping", or when something suddenly fits... Is it like you "feed" your brain with informations, and then you suddenly "grasp" a concept, without actually analysing it via Ti? Ye, it "fits", or something just "click" in your head, but not in "a Ti way", so it is not located in the system, and not understood by logical reasoning, it just "click" and you suddenly understand what idea/thing ("object") is? You have realization of what object is without actually analysing it, so without putting it into words in your head?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> I'm moving a conversation from another thread here:
> 
> I find it strange when Ne users say they can't relate to Ni, it just shows how awful the descriptions of Ni are. Both functions are intuition so they work the same way, Ne users have a better reference to Ni, than say Si. So think of your intuition and instead of expanding an idea outward (all the possible places it can go) think of it as using the same technique to bring it to a point (shedding away the possibilities and finding the meaning or core.) Ne finds the relevancy in all the new relations a concept brings and Ni eliminates obscure relations and looks for the most accurate one. Where Ne accepts every small connection, Ni looks for the strongest connection. We both use non-tangible information to get there. We just move a concept in opposite directions.


Ne: Extraverted iNtuiting

Extraverted Intuiting involves seeing all possibilities of a subject and believing that each one has a possibility of being true. We can juggle many ideas at once, and find that this cognitive function makes it easy and enjoyable to brainstorm. Extraverted Intuiting involves coming to conclusions about ideas from one major idea. The idea implies relationships and smaller ideas.

Ni: Introverted iNtuiting

This function allows a person to gain a sense about the future by processing data through impressions and meanings. We find ourselves discovering how the future will be by signs, trends, and patterns. We will find relationships between many ideas, and find ideas similar to those ideas in order to look for a main idea that is made up of these smaller ideas. These ideas and similar ideas come to one main idea that will turn out to be true and give the sense of an "Aha!" moment.​ 
I am having a hard time relating to Ni.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Kathy Kane said:


> I find it strange when Ne users say they can't relate to Ni, it just shows how awful the descriptions of Ni are. Both functions are intuition so they work the same way, Ne users have a better reference to Ni, than say Si.


I'll have to disagree with the last statement, I have a good reference to Si cause it's the function I use when I'm engaged with my senses, but maybe cause Si is my 3rd, so that's probably different for a ENFP or ENTP


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

arkigos said:


> @Abraxas @PaladinX -
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


A)This is probably the most revelational post I have ever read on this site. It really filled in a lot of gaps for me.

B)I am thoroughly convinced I am an Ne-Si type now.


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

Sorry to nitpick at your post as I enjoyed it for the most part, but two things, regarding Si, jumped out at me.



wolf12345 said:


> I'm sure that Si plays important role in NTP cognition process, but I think it doesn't play any important role in what I wrote above - simply because Si is purely physical, and in this way experienced, and all this "dot connecting" thing is highly conceptual.


But Si is not purely physical. It attaches symbolism and meaning, very abstract and subjective things, to physical objects.



> To a lesser extent, this "dot connecting" might be experienced when you notice relationships between things, which leads to an understanding of something. For example, you see an ambulance in front of his property, and immediately you know that your mother fell ill, even before you consciously analyze it. This, however, IS physical, so in fact it can actually be Si.


This example seems more like intuition to me.

Si would be along the lines of: You showed up at your mother's house. Ambulance lights were flashing. You learned your mother was ill and the ambulance was called for her. Now years later, every time you see ambulance lights you think of your mother.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

dinkytown said:


> Sorry to nitpick at your post as I enjoyed it for the most part, but two things, regarding Si, jumped out at me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well it might be attached to symbolism and meaning, frankly I didn't study Si that much. I was just reffering to my personal experience with this function, or to what I think I experience as Si...

Example, as you noticed, seems intuitive, and I also think it might be classified as some kind of intuition. I was just reffering to Arkigos post and his statement, that some forms of perception, commonly understood as intuition, may in fact be Si. I meant, that if anything, it's this kind of "connecting objects" in physical world that may be seen as Si, but not "connecting dots" between ideas.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@PaladinX what's the difference between intuitive - thinking and just intuition? Would entps and intjs classify as types that utilize intuitive - thinking?

And for what it's worth, but I've noticed that p doms are more likely to think that words contain no inherent meaning but the meaning is context derived.

I relate to what you say and not so much what arkigos say.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

wolf12345 said:


> Well it might be attached to symbolism and meaning, frankly I didn't study Si that much. I was just reffering to my personal experience with this function, or to what I think I experience as Si...
> 
> Example, as you noticed, seems intuitive, and I also think it might be classified as some kind of intuition. I was just reffering to Arkigos post and his statement, that some forms of perception, commonly understood as intuition, may in fact be Si. I meant, that if anything, it's this kind of "connecting objects" in physical world that may be seen as Si, but not "connecting dots" between ideas.


Si doesn't just connect objects in the physical world. It can work with the conceptual as well as the physical. Because it's an introverted function, most of my Si takes place in my head, away from the immediate physical world. And it connects observations or experiences with information or concepts (Si-Te). For example, I may be walking to class, but I'm not paying attention to what's going on around me. Instead, I'm thinking about how I experience Si. I'm putting together everything I know about Si, and everything I experience with it. And then ideas just come to me. I visualize conceptual differences between Si and Se, I get thoughts like "Si does X. Se does Y."

For the longest time I thought this was intuition. But connecting dots and forming ideas is not necessarily intuition.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> Si doesn't just connect objects in the physical world. It can work with the conceptual as well as the physical. Because it's an introverted function, most of my Si takes place in my head, away from the immediate physical world. And it connects observations or experiences with information or concepts (Si-Te). For example, I may be walking to class, but I'm not paying attention to what's going on around me. Instead, I'm thinking about how I experience Si. I'm putting together everything I know about Si, and everything I experience with it. And then ideas just come to me. I visualize conceptual differences between Si and Se, I get thoughts like "Si does X. Se does Y."
> 
> For the longest time I thought this was intuition. But connecting dots and forming ideas is not necessarily intuition.


I definitely relate to this. Objects are constantly reminding me of other objects. Yeah I'm fairly certain I am a strong user of introverted sensing. And I too thought this was intuition.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

UndercoverInstigator said:


> I definitely relate to this. Objects are constantly reminding me of other objects. Yeah I'm fairly certain I am a strong user of introverted sensing. And I too thought this was intuition.


Hmm, objects don't usually remind me other objects. That happens occasionally, but certainly not all the time. Tbh, I couldn't relate much to what you described in that other thread. I _could _make connections like that, but I would have to be consciously trying. I'm not sure what to make of that.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> Hmm, objects don't usually remind me other objects. That happens occasionally, but certainly not all the time. Tbh, I couldn't relate much to what you described in that other thread. I _could _make connections like that, but I would have to be consciously trying. I'm not sure what to make of that.


Ahh, I must have misunderstood what you meant. How would you say you experience Si?


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> Si doesn't just connect objects in the physical world. It can work with the conceptual as well as the physical. Because it's an introverted function, most of my Si takes place in my head, away from the immediate physical world. And it connects observations or experiences with information or concepts (Si-Te). For example, I may be walking to class, but I'm not paying attention to what's going on around me. *Instead, I'm thinking about how I experience Si. I'm putting together everything I know about Si, and everything I experience with it. And then ideas just come to me. I visualize conceptual differences between Si and Se, I get thoughts like "Si does X. Se does Y.*"
> 
> For the longest time I thought this was intuition. But connecting dots and forming ideas is not necessarily intuition.


What is bolded is Thinking (you categorize things) not Intuition but I'm not saying Si people can't think about ideas, it would be ridiculous. I may have not understood you correctly, but in your example you described categorization via Si + Te, not "dot connecting" process via Ne + Ti?

To pay attention, or not, is irrelevant IMO, not paying attention means just lack of perception, I am not a supporter of definition by negation.

I'm not sure if I get why you quoted my response about example with ambulance, you mean it is not good example of Si, because you don't put much attention into external environment? Or it might be example of an Si, but Si is also about having internal, expanding web of ideas like Ne + Ti has in my model?


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

With the analogy of perception functions as "joining the dots", this is what I'd say they are:-

Ni: Seeing what pictures are possible from the dots you have, in which some pictures seem more likely than others and thus converged on.

Ne: Projecting where the possible dots might be, based on external clues (often the more "hidden dots" that Se can't see so easily).

Se: Observing or looking for the dots are that are able to be sensed more directly (works best with Ni since is narrows down the possible pictures).

Si: Building a database of completed pictures from past experience (which can help with guessing the type of dots that Ne works best with). Presumably.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

wolf12345 said:


> What is bolded is Thinking (you categorize things) not Intuition but I'm not saying Si people can't think about ideas, it would be ridiculous. I may have not understood you correctly, but in your example you described categorization via Si + Te, not "dot connecting" process via Ne + Ti?
> 
> To pay attention, or not, is irrelevant IMO, not paying attention means just lack of perception, I am not a supporter of definition by negation.
> 
> I'm not sure if I get why you quoted my response about example with ambulance, you mean it is not good example of Si, because you don't put much attention into external environment? Or it might be example of an Si, but Si is also about having internal, expanding web of ideas like Ne + Ti has in my model?


Yes, I did say in my post that it was Si-Te. How are you defining "categorization" and "dot-connecting"? I would just say what I described was a process of reflection and synthesis, finding connections between all the information I've taken in over time (Si). I also extrapolate what I think another function such as Se must be like to fill in the blanks (Ne?). And then I derive an understanding through contrast with other elements within the system (Te).

I'm not sure why you're confused about why I responded to your post. The very first sentence I wrote was a direct response to something you said. I wasn't commenting on the ambulance example.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> @_PaladinX_ what's the difference between intuitive - thinking and just intuition? Would entps and intjs classify as types that utilize intuitive - thinking?
> 
> And for what it's worth, but I've noticed that p doms are more likely to think that words contain no inherent meaning but the meaning is context derived.
> 
> I relate to what you say and not so much what arkigos say.


That is a good question. I think the difference lies in the will.

Ne:



> Just as sensation, when given the priority, is not a mere reactive process of no further importance for the object, but is almost an action which seizes and shapes the object, so it is with intuition, which is by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but *an* *active, creative process that builds into the object just as much as it takes out.*


Ni:



> Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it follows directly from the given circumstances; whereas abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, necessitates a certain element of direction, *an act of will or a purpose.*


Intuitive-thinking:



> Undirected thinking, or intellectual intuition, on the contrary is, in my view, an irrational (q.v.) function, *since it criticizes and arranges the representations according to norms that are unconscious to me* and consequently not appreciated as reasonable.


I like the way that Jung puts it when describing feeling:



> The nature of a feeling-valuation may be compared with intellectual apperception as an apperception of value. An active and a passive feeling-apperception can be distinguished. The passive feeling-act is characterized by the fact that a content excites or attracts the feeling; it compels a feeling-participation on the part of the subject The active feeling-act, on the contrary, confers value from the subject—it is a deliberate evaluation of contents in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with intellectual intention. *Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love. This latter state would be undirected, passive feeling, as, indeed, the ordinary colloquial term suggests, since it describes the former as activity and the latter as a condition.* Undirected feeling is feeling-intuition. Thus, in the stricter sense, only the active, directed feeling should be termed rational: the passive is definitely irrational, since it establishes values without voluntary participation, occasionally even against the subject's intention.


The directed function is an "activity" while the passive function is simply a "condition."

That's why I think monemi's Se descriptions are so exciting. It's not simply just seeing things as they are. Her descriptions are filled with action.


I don't think that xNTx would necessarily be categorized as using "intuitive-thinking." Intuitive-thinking to me, is like a rumination. Just like sensation-feeling is an affect. Sensation-thinking I think is literal thinking. I don't know what intuitive-feeling would be. But they are hybrids and undifferentiated from one another.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

arkigos said:


> @_Abraxas_ @_PaladinX_ -
> 
> 
> * *
> ...



1. I didn't follow all of that, I'll re-read later with less of a headache, but much of it rung true. You'll notice one line made me go "hell yeah" so hard I bolded it, and then bolding it wasn't enough so i also upped the size. a lot. 

2. it is a phenomenon endlessly observed on these forums that XeXi pairs suck at describing the alternate YeYi pairs, often describing YeYi using XeXi terminology or concepts, possibly blending in a judging functions (thus, Ni often can describe Ne as a sort of Ni-Fe amalgam or whatever). Based on your observation above, it seems Jung was NiSe. Did this have influence on his cognitive models, above and beyond his inability to address or describe Ne?


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

UndercoverInstigator said:


> Ahh, I must have misunderstood what you meant. How would you say you experience Si?


I wasn't saying what you described wasn't Si. It does sound like it could be, it's just that it's a bit different from how I experience it.

Anyways, here is what my Si does (not to say that other Si types will necessarily relate to everything I list):

-Perceives input from reality as fuzzy, holistic impressions, vibes, and atmospheres, rather than separate objects and what they are doing (Se). For example, let's say two people (Se-Ni and Si-Ne) are outside in the middle of a thunder storm. The Se-Ni type might perceive the storm as an object with characteristics (big, loud, powerful) and actions (blowing objects around, flooding streets, knocking stuff over, etc.). And the Si-Ne type notices the sensory atmosphere of the storm and what it feels like (vibe/impression) to be standing there in the middle of it. Here's a visual example:








-Can connect things or experiences via impressions or vibes. Some experience this as nostalgia or being reminded of things, but in my case those terms don't resonate much because it mainly only happens when I'm really focusing on something. Here's an example of this from one of my posts:


Silveresque said:


> When I look at the helicopter, I don't get any sad feelings about it. For some reason I feel like the crash is something that happened a long time ago. The helicopter is an ancient relic. It has the same sort of vibe I might get from looking at a picture of a sunken ship being discovered many years later. Maybe it's because the soldiers don't really look like they're on a rescue mission. They're just kind of standing there, looking at it. Or maybe it's because the picture is pretty bright. Maybe if there were lots of dark clouds it would be different. Or if the helicopter was on fire and injured people were being pulled out and carried away on stretchers.


-Is involved in connecting observations and experiences to knowledge, information, or aspects of a theoretical system collected over time (Si-Te). (This is what people call a "database", though I'm not particularly fond of that term because it's an oversimplification. The database is merely a surface effect, not the actual process of Si.)
-It gives me a constant awareness of the locations of places and objects in space relative to my location. My mind automatically forms mental maps wherever I go, without conscious effort, and these maps can stay in my memory for many years. I may be able to recall the exact seat I sat in at a restaurant years ago. (I kind of doubt that all Si-doms experience this effect of Si, perhaps just the more spatially focused ones.)
-Because Si is inclined to form few, deep relations with objects, activities, or experiences, it makes me selective about what experiences I want to have. For example, I occasionally try to add variety to my life so I'll have more choices and won't be stuck in a rut, so for example I might look for a new hobby, or buy new types of food to cook. However, I never actually end up with more options because the not as good choices go extinct automatically. I may have found a good book to read, but if it's not as good as playing video games, I'll never get around to it. I am incapable of sustaining variety in my life (Si>Ne).


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

dinkytown said:


> Sorry to nitpick at your post as I enjoyed it for the most part, but two things, regarding Si, jumped out at me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was about to argue with that last example and then I changed my mind.


Si, for me, means a donut is not a donut.
No, instead, a donut is every time I've had a donut. It's either the sum total of a thousand repeated small impressions (morning, tired, coffee, cold air, new day) or occasionally those will be overlaid with some specific, strong memory (first date with crush, sprinkles, love).
Sometimes it sounds almost Ni-esque except no Ni person gets what I'm talking about. i.e. it has a "symbolism" to it. This smell just now, it smelled like my family, it smelled like [sudden blur of overlaid collage of a thousand memories attached to word "family" goes through mind in a split fraction of a second]. This isn't blue, this is "freedom", this isn't "smell of roses on air, tickling hair" but "childhood dreaming about unicorns while wandering barefoot in sun". 

Or sometimes it sounds like what people describe Fi like, and there is a sentimentality to it but it's... almost matter-of-fact... Fi is visceral emotion, this is something more... not fleeting, but it's not like a wham to the gut, usually. (for me as a Ti user. I imagine for Fi users Si plays heavily into Fi. based on my personal observation.)


anyway your last example was extreme, but it was given for an extreme situation. yes, post-trauma the lights will equal loss fear sad. but most of the time Si isn't trauma, and it's built up from a sum/collage, not a single event.


edit post: to clarify for the SeNi users-- "childhood dreaming about unicorns while wandering barefoot in sun" isn't just "childhood dreaming about unicorns while wandering barefoot in sun". Np, "childhood dreaming about unicorns while wandering barefoot in sun" is a lengthy concept-experience-idea-sensation-moment-feeling-thing that gets condensed, into this snapshot, it's late spring, I'm barefoot, the air smells precisely like it does (right now tenty years later half a world away when this gets triggered), there's this whole emotional set and a whole list of ideas, the thoughts I'm having, the story i was making up in my head at the time, my role in the family, it all gets squished together and condensed. and usually i don't decondense it, the feeling just washes over me, but in theory I could, unpack it, relive this ... thing.... that I'm not explaining well. Also I'm possibly making this sound mushier than it might be.

And yeah, just to reiterate--- Si works particularly well with repeated experiences or moments of particular significance. In physical terms: Slow reaction time, but fabulous muscle memory. (muscle memory is the weirdest thing ever. It is bizarre having your brain not know the way and watching your feet continue to walk because even though your conscious mind has no idea what is going on, your body still remembers the habit from years ago of where to go. WEIRD.)


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

@_Silveresque_


> _When I look at the helicopter, I don't get any sad feelings about it. For some reason I feel like the crash is something that happened a long time ago. The helicopter is an ancient relic.* It has the same sort of vibe I might get from looking at a picture of a sunken ship being discovered many years later.* Maybe it's because the soldiers don't really look like they're on a rescue mission. They're just kind of standing there, looking at it. Or maybe it's because the picture is pretty bright. Maybe if there were lots of dark clouds it would be different. Or if the helicopter was on fire and injured people were being pulled out and carried away on stretchers._


That sentence is the essence of Si, summed up. I think.

"It has the same sort of vibe as other thing".

...heck, the word "vibe" is basically just SiNe. 
I don't think SeNi gets "vibes". I think they get "this thing" and "the idea-symbolism of this thing". 

Actually, it seems to me like Si Ne are... more enmeshed in each other than Ni Se are? maybe I'm just saying that because I don't actually "get" Se Ni. point is, to me it seems like Se, Ni are these two very opposite, diverging sort of processes, "this thing that's here" and "this deeper layer of this thing", I don't really get how they would meld together the way Si, Ne often do (see: how much time is spent untangling what perceptions are Si and what are Ne).

Or maybe what i'm saying is that on a sliding scale of objectivity it goes:

Se -- Ne -- Si -- Ni

so Ne and Si are sorta hanging out in the middle there, neither of them purely objective or subjective, mixing around in this adorable SiNe bubble muss, whereas Se is this totally objective function and Ni is this totally subjective function?



Edit: By the way, your quote is also a good example of Ne, it displays the classic Ne behavior of story-building (first blatantly observed in the cognitive functions and art thread). Ne, given a picture, says "what is the story happening here", and just because language is ambiguous: I don't mean "what's the story" like "what's the _real_ story" I mean, literally, what's the story. Is it a crash from a long time ago? Are people being carried away on stretchers? What is going on? what is the context this is taking place in? I'm not sure what this tendency says about Ne in general, but it was a pretty clear split in the art thread between the Ne and Ni users. ("broaden context" vs "zoom in focus" was the general trend, i think?)

Edit #2:

if this is correct:
<-Se-x-Ne--Si-x-Ni->
(-x- denotes a mutually excluding perception)
it could mean that Ni has an easier time understanding Ne because it's "closer" to it (than to Se) in terms of subjectivity?
Maybe that's why an Ni user started this thread to explore feeling an understanding of Ne over S, whereas all the Ne users have been protesting that they feel pretty comfy with Si?


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> I was about to argue with that last example and then I changed my mind.
> 
> 
> Si, for me, means a donut is not a donut.
> ...


Thanks for describing this much more beautifully than I ever would have been able to. Si absolutely does not need to be negative. Nor does it need to be positive. It can produce meaning across the spectrum of emotion.

I also enjoyed your second post, particularly the description of Ni being pure subjectivity and Se being pure objectivity. This may be why Ni-doms are considered the most removed from reality and Se-doms are seen as the most hyper realistic. From the Se-doms and Ni-doms I've talked to online, they usually fall into two camps:

A)Not identifying with their inferior perceiving function at all.

or B)Are able to clearly delineate what is perceived by Ni and what is perceived by Se.

Ne-Si are usually much more muddled. I have only have the fuzziest of ideas as to where Ne ends and Si begins. They're too interconnected. Inseparable. It's difficult to describe but you absolutely cannot have one without the other.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_arkigos_,

If I may, I've noticed a theme in the way you talk when you present your ideas.

It's as if you've already drawn a conclusion that you worked really hard on - your whole life in fact - and you've gone about making all the pieces fit into the shape of that paradigm, which makes perfect sense to you because within it, _everything_ is rational. And so, even though others besides myself are, in a manner of speaking, pointing you directly at the answers, you refuse to assimilate them because it would mean redefining your entire model, throwing out what I can only assume to be fundamental truths upon which everything rests in the balance, which would have far-reaching consequences on not just your understanding of MBTI, but your entire world-view - your _entire_ conceptualization of time, space, self, other, existence, etc...

And I admire your struggle to define what you believe. To protect and preserve that beautiful symmetry - that grand design, in which all things have their place, and literally _everything_ makes sense, revealing the perfection of nature, the perfection of consciousness. It's poetic and makes me feel really good for some reason. Like, it's kind of romantic. Maybe it's my tertiary Ti.

It's like watching someone build a magnificent castle out of sand, and then, in defiance of nature, doing everything they can to stop the tide. It's really... "bold" I guess is the word.

Lol, sorry. You guys can continue your conversation now. I just wanted to say that much.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Funnily, I don't have that problem with your thinking. It took time to get used to yes, sometimes you also ramble without a point or way beyond the point, but expansion of thinking is not my issue with you. You are always very logical and easy to follow in that regard.
> 
> I think this idea of expansion-contraction is better explained by Viktor Gulenko's cognitive styles and the clashes that are felt when people of different styles try to make sense of someone else's style: Gulenko Cognitive Styles - Wikisocion
> 
> ...


Yeah, that could be actually. I see what you mean.

Like, it's going back to Wittgenstein's private language argument kind of, if I'm not mistaken?

Or something like that.

But you're right. It could just be that I'm mixing up the language because I can't imagine what it'd be like without it.

I guess maybe it's kind of like a chicken and the egg thing. I was probably just putting the cart before the horse.

I can see a lot of different ways to look at it, but all of them just seem to be suggesting the same thing to me - in the end, it depends on preference/ego of the individual I think. How it ends up seeming to work just has to do with the way they choose to look at it. Like saying "2 + 2 = 4" versus "4 = 2 + 2."

Maybe we're all just saying the same thing and don't even know it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Yeah, that could be actually. I see what you mean.
> 
> Like, it's going back to Wittgenstein's private language argument kind of, if I'm not mistaken?
> 
> ...


That puts the fifth transcendent function in an interesting peculiar position, don't you think? I mean yes, in relation to say, red vs green light, we can say that perhaps there is also a Thinking system we can utilize as a reference point and I bet Thinkers do that in particular, but there are also archetypal images embedded in say, the color red, that to me honestly transcends the use of the Thinking meaning of red traffic lights though this meaning is embedded into the Thinking meaning of red traffic lights. I apologize for the confusing sentence. I think you get what I mean. 

So indeed, chicken or the egg. Well, introversion or extroversion, anyway. Extroversion can't quite produce things on its own without referencing to what already is, hence Jung thinks of it as a posteriori and introversion as a priori.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> @_arkigos_,
> 
> If I may, I've noticed a theme in the way you talk when you present your ideas.
> 
> ...


I noticed the same thing, which makes sense given that he is a Ti-dom. 

It makes me wonder if what my experience in discussing these topics with him is Te. What I mean is that I provide all kinds of quotes that @arkigos might tear asunder as he compares the data with his internal model. He will even make claims that Jung was wrong. Whereas, I compare everything to what Jung says and I define what is correct or incorrect based on Jung. In other words, I take the external data and compare it to external data or rules. I have no subjective "rules" or model that I am comparing against. Yet another way to put it is that I compare against an external standard whereas he compares to an internal standard.

Does that make sense? I can't quite find the right words to convey my meaning, I think. It was just a thought anyway.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I noticed the same thing, which makes sense given that he is a Ti-dom.
> 
> It makes me wonder if what my experience in discussing these topics with him is Te. What I mean is that I provide all kinds of quotes that @arkigos might tear asunder as he compares the data with his internal model. He will even make claims that Jung was wrong. Whereas, I compare everything to what Jung says and I define what is correct or incorrect based on Jung. In other words, I take the external data and compare it to external data or rules. I have no subjective "rules" or model that I am comparing against. Yet another way to put it is that I compare against an external standard whereas he compares to an internal standard.
> 
> Does that make sense? I can't quite find the right words to convey my meaning, I think. It was just a thought anyway.


I see what you are saying but I also wonder if Jung isn't wrong in some things sometimes. I know I'm Te so I can't even blame it on some supposed Ti I possess, lol. But I think the difference is that if Jung doesn't match up to all other systems I've observed, I think I am more inclined to think Jung is wrong. 

This idea that the auxiliary must always take the same orientation of the dominant if fully differentiated for example, I don't buy that. I think that what Jung thinks of the auxiliary is actually quite different from what we think of the auxiliary today. I am for example inclined to think that Jung may have thought of me as NiTi or possibly even NiFiTi. He seems to have thought that the auxiliary was seen more through the lens of the dominant or be a reflection of the dominant which is why Ti may seem Te in the type we now think of as ENTP. 

I saw that @Shadow Logic expressed disagreement with this understanding though, so perhaps he'd be willing to explain more about it as I have only seen some of the pictures of how Jung conceptualized the psyche which to me makes it difficult to interpret it as anything else than if introverted psyche, then XiXiXeXe for the auxiliary.

Whatever Jungian type I am outside of Ni dominant and how you choose to classify that, I know I'm Te-Fi though, and not some weird undifferentiated auxiliary or lacking orientation ambiversion thing. There are people on PerC where I might argue that, but at least when it comes to my own psyche I know it's oddly differentiated especially given my age. I am not even sure why it is.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> @_arkigos_,
> 
> If I may, I've noticed a theme in the way you talk when you present your ideas.
> 
> ...


There is such a beauty in systems, I cannot describe. A perfect system is art. I am a programmer, and whether a program works or is applicable couldn't be less interesting to me. Beauty matters... and elegance is nothing more or less than when the system is pure. So many people focus on the output, but it feels as though the output will always be perfect, when we forget it and make the system better. Make the process better. 

There is a certain metaphor in tirelessly buttressing a sandcastle against the waves. Should it fail, it wasn't worthy. But I cannot come close to simply saying that Jung knew better and to bring myself into alignment with that. What a horrifying thing to imagine! 

Of course Jung was wrong. We will not be sitting around in 3326 quoting Jung. Jung will be a notable contributor to the great works of some big thinker or thinkers who were inspired by his work, and corrected and built upon it. This endeavor begs for boldness. Requires it. Yet if feels that @PaladinX fulfills such a pivotal role of antagonizing it. If not for that, I don't think I always have the tools to not get myself wrapped up in some abstract microcosm... and lost. I desperately need to be told I am wrong and why... to be handed bits of reality and reminded that they exist and why. 


@_Kathy Kane_ @_ephemereality_ - On expansion... yes, the scope always grows. One thing always hints at another, usually in expansion. Yet it still begs the question as to whether this is Ne in and of itself. Do NFPs also continuously expand in this way? If so, do they always do on points of logic, or on points of value? For example, do I constantly expand on points of ethics? Interesting question, eh? I am so often expanding logically, but do I jump around ethically? Or am I rigid, even reductive? If so, why? 

I'll tell you that I perceive myself as frustrating to NFPs in my ever expanding logical frameworks. I suspect that they want something more practical. I have extensive experience with this sort of interaction with a particular INFP, whom I know to be one. 

If so, can it be said that Ne intrinsically causes this, or is it Ti in context of Ne? If so, is it a feature of Ne, or is Ne merely a catalyst to it? Or is it that Fe or Te block it somehow? 

If you consider my Ne and Fe, it is more that I tend to see the essence of things, I feel objectively... and then make quite grand pronouncements about them, also quite 'objectively'. This doesn't expand.. and seems quite up front.... clear, even too clear. No hesitation, no nuance. 

Something I notice ubiquitously with Ne types is a desire to see every perspective... in the same way that Se seems to want to get all the information. Why do Se types seem so prone to 'soak up' everything ... when the function is described as 'it is'. It seems so analogous with Ne in practice, one dealing with idea and one with data, in a sense. Yet, again and again Se is 'it is' in terms of actuals, while they clearly seek aggressively after dynamic content.... and we see Ne seek out aggressively for dynamic perspective... yet it is not 'it is' in terms of idea? It is an interesting thing to me, because the system begs for it... yet we cannot see it. How is it that you have one but not the other?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I see what you are saying but I also wonder if Jung isn't wrong in some things sometimes. I know I'm Te so I can't even blame it on some supposed Ti I possess, lol. But I think the difference is that if Jung doesn't match up to all other systems I've observed, I think I am more inclined to think Jung is wrong.
> 
> This idea that the auxiliary must always take the same orientation of the dominant if fully differentiated for example, I don't buy that. I think that what Jung thinks of the auxiliary is actually quite different from what we think of the auxiliary today. I am for example inclined to think that Jung may have thought of me as NiTi or possibly even NiFiTi. He seems to have thought that the auxiliary was seen more through the lens of the dominant or be a reflection of the dominant which is why Ti may seem Te in the type we now think of as ENTP.
> 
> ...


I'm sure he can be wrong. No one is infallible really. The point wasn't so much about Jung as it was that I seem to try to compare everything to external standards, regardless of how correct or incorrect that standard might be. @_arkigos_ is actively trying to see how external facts fit his internal model. The ones that don't fit are discarded (not without reason of course). I am actively trying to make external facts fit an external system in and of itself. I am not trying to exclude anything that appears to not work. Rather I am adjusting my perspective to see how it could work. If from my understanding the pieces don't fit, then it is my understanding that is flawed. It seems to me that from @_arkigos_' standpoint if the pieces don't fit his understanding, the pieces are flawed.

I find that many people here are looking at or for one true system, whereas I'm building many. I am trying to build from what I think is Jung's perspective (I admit that this is my preferred one), I have another from Myers, Berens/Nardi, the community's collective understanding, etc. I see no reason to necessarily exclude one or the other though. I work with many what if's and if thens. It's difficult for me to explain, but I really like root perspectives. I like to know where something is coming from so I can see where it is going and vice versa.

EDIT: I apologize if I am being redundant. I am throwing out things as they come to me when I write. And for the tangents. I'm rambling now. Seacrest out.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I'm sure he can be wrong. No one is infallible really. The point wasn't so much about Jung as it was that I seem to try to compare everything to external standards, regardless of how correct or incorrect that standard might be. @_arkigos_ is actively trying to see how external facts fit his internal model. The ones that don't fit are discarded (not without reason of course). I am actively trying to make external facts fit an external system in and of itself. I am not trying to exclude anything that appears to not work. Rather I am adjusting my perspective to see how it could work. If from my understanding the pieces don't fit, then it is my understanding that is flawed. It seems to me that from @_arkigos_' standpoint if the pieces don't fit his understanding, the pieces are flawed.
> 
> I find that many people here are looking at or for one true system, whereas I'm building many. I am trying to build from what I think is Jung's perspective (I admit that this is my preferred one), I have another from Myers, Berens/Nardi, the community's collective understanding, etc. I see no reason to necessarily exclude one or the other though. I work with many what if's and if thens. It's difficult for me to explain, but I really like root perspectives. I like to know where something is coming from so I can see where it is going and vice versa.
> 
> EDIT: I apologize if I am being redundant. I am throwing out things as they come to me when I write. And for the tangents. I'm rambling now. Seacrest out.


I wonder if this is Te or Se.

I find that even with ISTPs, they want to dig really deep but at the end of it all, they turn to the next person and say, "Okay, now let's hear yours" and tend to weigh them fairly evenly... and then at great great great great length, you ask them if they ever concluded anything... they either shrug, or pull out something incredibly left field... that seems like it was internally spawned and absolutely not moored to objective reality at all. 

This feels consistent with Ti Se Ni Fe. I don't know if it is consistent with you... but I suspect that Se can indeed provide this relatively agnostic approach to what could be actually true in terms of real world data. I have no respect for the object... but Se seems to keep it fairly coherent in their mind.... as if it were a thing unto itself, inviolate.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

arkigos said:


> There is such a beauty in systems, I cannot describe. A perfect system is art. I am a programmer, and whether a program works or is applicable couldn't be less interesting to me. Beauty matters... and elegance is nothing more or less than when the system is pure. So many people focus on the output, but it feels as though the output will always be perfect, when we forget it and make the system better. Make the process better.
> 
> There is a certain metaphor in tirelessly buttressing a sandcastle against the waves. Should it fail, it wasn't worthy. But I cannot come close to simply saying that Jung knew better and to bring myself into alignment with that. What a horrifying thing to imagine!
> 
> ...


You're hitting on something that I've been processing about the functions. I'm not sure how to respond to what you're saying. I've started a post several times and have canceled them to think about it more. 

From what I've seen ENFPs are more likely to talk about people in the way you talk about logic. They expand the relationships they have with other people outward, or how people's responses lead to different responses and they move that outward. Regardless, people are their main subject. 

In both cases I can see how I'm not like that. I want to collapse the perception and I have little interest in personal interactions between people, especially strangers. Of course that is because Te separates from the personal. 

What I ponder from your posts is how the function order is a missing part of my full understanding. I see so many others here unsure if they are J first or P first and it makes me question how to determine that situation. I'm not sure about the answer.

For Se and Ne I see Se as the testers. Often times that is either attributed to Ti or Te, but I think Se is the real tester. They see a rip in the carpet and they touch it, a strange smell and they investigate, or a hole in the wall and they look through it. In order to know what something is they collect the perception they need in an experimental way. Ne will see a rip in the carpet and they could expand it to the whole house falling down or something. 

I still want to think about your posts more.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> @Kathy Kane,
> 
> That's a good point about the symbolism of Ni being more about judgment. It's an irrational function, so it doesn't define anything.
> 
> Like, there has to be something already there in your mental "database" for Ni to point at, which comes from judgment. There has to be something to synthesize different points of view into to produce a symbol, which comes from judgment. If there's no pre-existing symbols or conceptual system, then Ni wouldn't have anything to do. There'd just be nothing to look at. Nothing there.


Going from Jung's ideas about the Feeling functions, he describes them as applying value and worth. I took that attributed it to symbolism. It's taking something we've observed, giving it value or worth, and then putting another meaning to it. That process would go through our feeling judging structure or system.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> Going from Jung's ideas about the Feeling functions, he describes them as applying value and worth. I took that attributed it to symbolism. It's taking something we've observed, giving it value or worth, and then putting another meaning to it. That process would go through our feeling judging structure or system.


Wow, that's going way farther than I did. That makes a lot of sense too.

Thank you!


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> I noticed the same thing, which makes sense given that he is a Ti-dom.
> 
> It makes me wonder if what my experience in discussing these topics with him is Te. What I mean is that I provide all kinds of quotes that @_arkigos_ might tear asunder as he compares the data with his internal model. He will even make claims that Jung was wrong. Whereas, I compare everything to what Jung says and I define what is correct or incorrect based on Jung. In other words, I take the external data and compare it to external data or rules. I have no subjective "rules" or model that I am comparing against. Yet another way to put it is that I compare against an external standard whereas he compares to an internal standard.
> 
> Does that make sense? I can't quite find the right words to convey my meaning, I think. It was just a thought anyway.


Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

I actually do that too somewhat.

For me it's like... you walk into a room and everyone is speaking a language, and the language has these rules - you have to be very careful what you say, because everything is very specific, you know. And I would skim the material - I did this for years actually, back when I first joined PerC and went in endless circles about my type - and in the back of my mind I just think I see the "gist" and so I'm like, "it's this" and try to explain something. But I'm deviating way out from what the literal meaning of the stuff is, and it's contradicting X and Y and this and that, and I would start to get frustrated because these criticisms (which mostly came from the well-established INTJs here about whom I have no doubt are definitely INTJ) just felt arbitrary, like someone being picky or something and telling me, "no it has to have a cherry and it has to match what all of this stuff says and it has to be like this."

So, I had to force myself to conform with the material, and here I am many years later, and I've realize that was the wrong way to go. That was like, putting the cart before the horse. Instead, I just needed to recognize that these "rules" being imposed over what I was saying were just the communal values of the social group I was participating in. That was their Te, and it mattered to them, and if I wanted to play with them and be part of their sandbox, I needed to learn the rules of the game. It wasn't fair for me to just come in and be like, "why do you bother moving the knight piece like that, just take his queen and be done with it" ignoring the rules.

TL;DR, I'm more laid back now. I realize my limits. Where I'm trying waaaaay to hard to fit in, and I need to respect myself and not try to force myself into a mold that I can't fit into. I let it go, so now I just see what my intuition shows me, and I let my Ti have a peek, and I'm like, "yeah that makes sense." I try to be more agreeable and I find I'm happier that way. And sometimes my positive encouragement is just what was needed. So that's what I'm trying to do from now on.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I'm sure he can be wrong. No one is infallible really. The point wasn't so much about Jung as it was that I seem to try to compare everything to external standards, regardless of how correct or incorrect that standard might be. @_arkigos_ is actively trying to see how external facts fit his internal model. The ones that don't fit are discarded (not without reason of course). I am actively trying to make external facts fit an external system in and of itself. I am not trying to exclude anything that appears to not work. Rather I am adjusting my perspective to see how it could work. If from my understanding the pieces don't fit, then it is my understanding that is flawed. It seems to me that from @_arkigos_' standpoint if the pieces don't fit his understanding, the pieces are flawed.
> 
> I find that many people here are looking at or for one true system, whereas I'm building many. I am trying to build from what I think is Jung's perspective (I admit that this is my preferred one), I have another from Myers, Berens/Nardi, the community's collective understanding, etc. I see no reason to necessarily exclude one or the other though. I work with many what if's and if thens. It's difficult for me to explain, but I really like root perspectives. I like to know where something is coming from so I can see where it is going and vice versa.
> 
> EDIT: I apologize if I am being redundant. I am throwing out things as they come to me when I write. And for the tangents. I'm rambling now. Seacrest out.


I know I'm sort of jumping in on this thread late, but the conversation going on with you guys is really interesting and I just can't resist. 

I'm not entirely sure if the varying approaches between you and @_arkigos_ are type related. I very much identify with what you're saying, if I find a piece that's incomparable with a system I assume that I'm wrong. I've scoured the internet, read tons of books, and tried to piece all the different typology systems together, and when I find something incompatible I assume it's my problem and my misunderstanding. Yet at the same time I understand arkigos's point of view that Jung is just one guy who had some ideas, and he was trying to figure out the same stuff as all of us. He is probably wrong about a lot of stuff, that's just how things are. There are people on here who's posts I'll always look for in a thread and actually fully read, because I can understand them easily, and it's certainly somewhat type related. I of course don't know for sure people are accurately typed, so there's always that issue.

The reason I got into typology is because I think human interaction is fascinating and I wanted to understand why people do the things that they do, why do they think the things that they think, and how do I find and identify people who are like me or that I would get along with. So I think about typing everyone I know, but I usually don't type people as much as I use the functional framework to understand the dynamics of interactions. For example, I have a couple friends who are very physical sort of types, like if you give them shit they get in your face a little bit, might jab you. It's what I consider a sort of physically aggressive Se type behavior, it actually makes me uncomfortable, but knowing what I know about typology I respect our differences. I actually think they respect me more and we get along better if I participate in it. 

With having said all that, I feel like a terrible INTP sometimes, I've been on this forum for a while and I read stuff by you, @_arkigos_, @Abraxas, @_ephemereality_, and you guys are always referencing stuff, breaking the theories down and discussing inconsistencies. I can honestly say I have never found an inconsistency in a typology system, the thought has never crossed my mind. My goal has always been to read and try to understand where everyone is coming from, and that the overlapping common aspects are the most likely to be true and the rest may or may not be true, it's totally unverifiable. People always want to know stuff like, "lolz my boyfriend doesn't care about my feelings, iz he an INTJ?", "my friend said they would come to by birthday party, but there was a tone in their voice, like they really didn't want to, what do you think their type is?", "my friend has a really nice leather jacket, does this explain why only respond to my texts with one or two word responses?". To me what literally happens doesn't actually matter, ever, behaviors don't mean anything, how people dress doesn't mean anything, and society's pre agreed upon signals don't actually exist. To me it's all about core beliefs and personal priorities, and those core beliefs translate into actions. Sure we can try to identify and correlate actions and try to identify patterns, label them as evidence of functions, but I think that's the hard way. I usually just try to figure out what quadra people are in, or figure out whether they are Fi/Te or Ti/Fe because that's usually enough for what I need. I don't necessarily understand the desire to isolate Ne or Ni from judging functions, I honestly don't think it can be done. I think everyone wants to do it, but some sort of unified piece part theory is only possible if cognition is a linear combination of the functions. If there are second and third order effects, which I think there are, then this isn't going to work.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_Cellar Door_

Good point. Wouldn't it be funny if all of us turned out to be the same type but that's how different personality itself is?



> I don't necessarily understand the desire to isolate Ne or Ni from judging functions, I honestly don't think it can be done. I think everyone wants to do it, but some sort of unified piece part theory is only possible if cognition is a linear combination of the functions. If there are second and third order effects, which I think there are, then this isn't going to work.


Abstraction.



Jung said:


> *Abstraction*
> As the word already implies, is the drawing out or isolation of a content (e.g. a meaning or general character, etc.) from a connection, containing other elements, whose combination as a totality is something unique or individual, and therefore inaccessible to comparison.


Your point reminds me of a philosophy class where we discussed Kant. My prof used the analogy of a recipe to convey Kant's idea about how knowledge is formed. You have ingredients (data) but then you have processes to follow such as mixing, baking, time to bake, to sit, etc (judging); all necessary for baking a cake (knowledge). Or something along those lines. I don't quite remember the analogy now.




arkigos said:


> I wonder if this is Te or Se.
> 
> I find that even with ISTPs, they want to dig really deep but at the end of it all, they turn to the next person and say, "Okay, now let's hear yours" and tend to weigh them fairly evenly... and then at great great great great length, you ask them if they ever concluded anything... they either shrug, or pull out something incredibly left field... that seems like it was internally spawned and absolutely not moored to objective reality at all.
> 
> This feels consistent with Ti Se Ni Fe. I don't know if it is consistent with you... but I suspect that Se can indeed provide this relatively agnostic approach to what could be actually true in terms of real world data. I have no respect for the object... but Se seems to keep it fairly coherent in their mind.... as if it were a thing unto itself, inviolate.


That's entirely possible. I have a hard time seeing myself as a thinking dominant though. I get really frustrated when I actively try to apply my thinking ability. Sort of.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Funnily, enfps and intps share cognitive style. Both are hp. I dislike cd more with the exception of my dual. Positivist driven styles (cd, vs) grate on my brain usually. 
@arkigos i see the same beauty in symbols as you do in systems. The feeling that there is something so profound about life that it could be a religious experience except i know it's not - it's like the ni version of crack. I could live for that feeling and be rendered completely unintelligible because all I do is observing it, getting lost in it. 

As for istps,.I've run into a couple here on perc who are definitely istps but are mistyped and the difference is in the Ni depth and ne. Istp ni makes me facepalm because they just do that. They try so hard to reach for something but then they pull out last moment and say "no that wasn't really that important". It's sadly hilarious at times. I have also yet to run into a really highly intelligent istp so that could also be a contributing factor. Average intelligence just doesn't cut it, at least not to me. The plight of being way above average i suppose.

Another thing in relation to that is that a lot of t doms on this site (f doms too but rarer) all confuse the abstract quality of thinking for intuition. 

I really think there might need to be a thread discussing this, pc or not. Intuition is more than being able to think abstractly or perhaps in a sense, it's much simpler than that. 

I also wonder if like not a majority of perc members are actually ambiverts or simply undifferentiated. There are for example very few individuals that I have observed whose preference is so clear where I'd say yes, you must be that function! But anyway just some tired musings because I just got up.

There's a difference between intj and ni dominant is what im trying to say. One does not have to be both necessarily.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I wonder if this is Te or Se.
> 
> I find that even with ISTPs, they want to dig really deep but at the end of it all, they turn to the next person and say, "Okay, now let's hear yours" and tend to weigh them fairly evenly... and then at great great great great length, you ask them if they ever concluded anything... they either shrug, or pull out something incredibly left field... that seems like it was internally spawned and absolutely not moored to objective reality at all.
> 
> This feels consistent with Ti Se Ni Fe. I don't know if it is consistent with you... but I suspect that Se can indeed provide this relatively agnostic approach to what could be actually true in terms of real world data. I have no respect for the object... but Se seems to keep it fairly coherent in their mind.... as if it were a thing unto itself, inviolate.


So I have a friend that I have been comparing notes with about how we think. We are very very similar in how we think about things. I just made him take the official MBTI test. He came out INTP. He read the official INTP and identified with it a lot. Then I made him read the ISTP one. He said that it was entirely wrong (for him) but definitely sounded like me. Now I'm sure that you don't use either the test or the profiles as any kind of real indicator, but I just wanted to share that I think you might be right.


----------

