# Not Getting Ne



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Hrm... that might be hard to describe. It is simply that Ni seems genuinely detached from reality... as an example, an ENFP was talking with an INFJ and emphatically (almost shouting) about how we need to help people in the world, people in genuine need, and the INFJ lost all expression and you could see his eyes zone out a bit, just before he asked, quite earnestly, and in a spirit quite similar to the one I imagine you using now, "Why?". It wasn't evil, but it rocked everyone back on their heels. It kinda reminded me of Watchmen, that tagline where Rorschach (clearly an Ni user of some kind, despite being fictional obviously) saying:


Heh, yeah, I guess that's kind of accurate. I might indeed ask "Why?" in that situation, especially if I cannot understand the reasoning behind it. What do you mean by that? Why is it important to you? and so on. I want them to extract some kind of core of their thinking, the source that instigated it all and give it to me so I can mull it over and make sense of it. If someone provides an appropriate answer I might in fact not respond in turn I suppose. It answered whatever I wanted to know. The information itself is satisfactory. 



> I've used this quote before.. and I can't pull what I mean to say out of the Ether, I suppose, but there it is. I sense this sort of detachment often in NJ types... ubiquitously... not that they are psychopaths, not at all! but there is that aspect to them, typically well-countered by other aspects. It's just a piece, but I am fairly certain that at it's core, it's Ni (rather than some other function). It's tied into the paranoia, the seeing of patterns, that I often have them say that they think in images or colors or other visceral abstract metaphorical way, none of which I understand or can properly relate. I am relying a great deal on intuition to carry this across, but there it is nevertheless.


I think I understand what you mean but it's definitely coming from Si-Ne so it seems... rather off. Like yes, I see what you are trying to describe but yet I don't feel it entirely encapsulates the core of the idea, the idea of the idea of the idea. I also realize that it's your own subjective experience so that in itself can be difficult to describe. I am not even a strongly visual thinker for most of the part, but when I do think in visuals, this actually isn't far off:






People think you need to be on drugs to think up this stuff, but no, you don't. I can look at an object in my surroundings and if I don't take control over my mental content the object just keeps twisting, merging, changing forms, very similar to how you see the cows changing form in this video. 

But yes, the thinking itself is abstract in that what I perceive has nothing to do with what is actually being experienced or sensed. Like if I hear the sound of rain, I don't just hear the sound of rain but it starts an entire chain reaction of thoughts that I associate to what rain is. I can't even verbalize it meaningfully because it's just so abstract. It's just a very strong impression. I recorded a video of this that creates this feeling:






It's at the end of the video when you see the flower losing its seeds. Images like that just leave very strong impressions behind that cannot be vocalized. It just feels meaningful, like it's extremely symbolically important in some way. The video you linked also gives that sensation but it's more a sense of fascination just like with cyriak's videos in that I can look at it endlessly and get something from it because I sense there's something there beyond what it is I am actually seeing that means something. I find this experience particularly powerful when it also lines up with Fi in that there is a very strong internal feeling accompanied with it that also adds some layer where something can become utterly beautiful beyond words. The idea or whatever I sense also has its own internal value. It's a little awe-inspiring and I think the closest description that even accurately captures the essence of it is almost like meeting god. Though clearly, it's not god nor do I believe in god, but if I met god, I guess that's what I'd feel but ten times more powerfully. 

This song does that for example. It just touches very deep down and one has to listen to the entirety of it, not just a portion. It's just so finalized when you hear the sound of rain at the end:








> I rather find it is NJs who are the focused on sense experience. It's weird because it is not at all a constant thing... they are in a sense creatures of an extreme (at least in my perception) ... they are so cerebral(?) and removed from senses but then I walk into my INTJ mothers house, or my INFJ friend... and the aesthetic is powerful and palpable. Colors, shapes, paintings, lighting, patterns, themes... there is a lushness to it all. I remember just this 4th of July we were all outside doing fireworks, and two INxJs (brother and sister, both in their late 30s) were inside and had essentially locked themselves in and us out... and my curiosity got the better of me and I snuck in... and there was this trancy music playing, and this almost imperceptible blue light and some sort of ... smoke? and it had a scent as well... and I think there was some like ... laser light on the wall.. which might have been where that faint blue glow was coming from.. and the laser was making these light stream patterns. Anyway, they were doing something weird that appears to at one point to have involved a massage. I don't think it was anything creepy, just really really 'abstract' for lack of a better word.
> 
> That isn't a one-off either. A completely unrelated INFJ and his ENFJ lover are all into that getting lost in rave music stuff...I don't know how to explain it in a way that gives it due credit because I don't get it at all. Even the ones who aren't like that... all of them seem very focused on 'finer things' like aesthetics in food... like tasting wine and stuff like that. Gotta be Se, right? With obvious Ni influence. I was watching a
> 
> ...


Heh, what struck me with your friends photographs is that some of their angles resemble my own graphics to a degree, in that there's that harsh edginess to it and part of what I am trying to improve is to find a way to smoothen out the experience because I find that it's not always wholly pleasant to experience. I feel that the better my work is, the smoother this experience becomes because the experience seems more holistic. Difficult to put into words: 

http://leatelamon.deviantart.com/gallery/35909933

I see what you mean in that Ni types regardless of how removed they are usually, when they go on to engage Se it's very visceral and extremely concrete and I know what you mean and refer to. It's akin to when I go to metal shows that is something I do definitely for the sake of engaging with Se, in that metal shows are often extremely visceral in experience. It's about feeling the bass against your body, the loudness of the music itself, the sensation of being a part of this crowd and losing yourself in the music, seeing all the lights and the gas if it's being used and so on. Pretty much becoming one with the environment. I'm not going there for the social but I'm going there because it leaves something behind physically, at least if the show is good and I think I even part understand a good show based on how good the band was to leave a physical impression behind. I saw Behemoth a bit more than a year ago and what really impressed me with the show was how entertaining it was because it was so vivid because of all the theatrics. Especially with metal also, the music itself is so visceral. The heavy guitar work, the bass, the drums, the singing too especially if it's growling, it just has this very primitive and primal nature to it. I think the music I listen and prefer to listen to more so than other genres since it's a very varied one. At some level I just want it very simple. I never liked symphonic music for example, because I feel it removes itself from that simplicity and tries to cover it up with what I can only describe as schmuck. Too many instruments, too many attempts to add detail to detail to detail and yes of course, nice details in composition can really add to the overall impression, but with symphonic music I experience it becomes too much. It just struck me that the idea of symphonic music is very Ti. It's all about this logical structure where this detail fits into this larger whole but has little to do with the end-feeling of the product in a sense. To me music is all about the feels. If it can't generate any "good" feels, and by good I mean something more akin to a feel that speaks to you personally in some way, then it's just worthless no matter how much musical precision is put into the piece. I just don't care. Good music isn't about the precision or use of certain elements or some such, but how capable it is to personally speak to you. But that's my opinion on the matter and I think people can endlessly disagree here. 



> I guess I mean completely detaching from objective reality. I don't know how else to describe it. That thing that Ni-doms do. I guess a weak example is how Ni types can see... say, the Catholic Church as being an entity that is wholly evil... and you realize they are seeing it in a purely abstract sense. I am referencing Christopher Hitchens for this example "Religion poisons everything" - to me that is what I would call 'pure abstraction'. It's not implicit in the words alone, but I recognize where his mind has gone.. and that it is an abstract place. I don't think Ne types are really capable of going there... at least not in that way.


Yeah, I think I know what you mean when you refer to the Catholic Church as evil, though it definitely seems equally Feeling-informed as a conclusion. I am not even sure I see a point about making such value judgements about the Catholic Church as an institution because as much as any religion can represent certain ideas, traditions and so on, they are just that, representations. Whatever meaning you derive from the religion in question is ultimately up to the individual to decide so labeling an entire religious institution as evil seems very simplistic from my end, anyway. People derive whatever meaning they find important. Whether those meanings are evil or not, meh, then we get into a discussion what evil itself is, which I ultimately think is subjective. Perhaps one can make a compelling argument for the existence of objective evil but how does that change anything? Doesn't mean that every person who worships the religion is, and even if one is strictly speaking about religion as an institution, the structure exists because people uphold it. It doesn't exist on its own objectively, though I guess maybe a Te dom might disagree with me here being more focused on the idea of structure and its importance. 



> Sorry, not a conceptual slap - an actual (though probably only imagined) one. I mean that there is a world around them that they can see... and then meant to clarify that I meant that in a conceptual sense. Not that they should look and see the world ... but that they should conceive it in their mind, and what it means, and realize how there is nothing to worry about or be so uptight or in rut about..... because.... there is a WORLD!! I am sure that makes zero sense... but, suffice it to say, I didn't mean a conceptual slap. LOL.


lol no it doesn't at all, actually. In simple Se(Te) logic terms, either there is a world or there isn't.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I guess I mean completely detaching from objective reality. I don't know how else to describe it. That thing that Ni-doms do. I guess a weak example is how Ni types can see... say, the Catholic Church as being an entity that is wholly evil... and you realize they are seeing it in a purely abstract sense. I am referencing Christopher Hitchens for this example "Religion poisons everything" - to me that is what I would call 'pure abstraction'. It's not implicit in the words alone, but I recognize where his mind has gone.. and that it is an abstract place. I don't think Ne types are really capable of going there... at least not in that way.


Black-white views are indeed usually avoided by the Ne'er, since they block the very function itself. (That's why the xNxP's is probably the biggest anti-dogma type, since dogma is usually the result of black-white thinking.) Personally, religion is only good when it's actually centered around love, spirituality and acceptance. If not, God usually becomes an extention of the ego, an excuse (e.g. "I'm closer to God than you." "You're a sinner, I'm not."), instead of an ideal which can only be reached through application of the former (love/spirituality). God without love is your worst nightmare, God with love is your greatest friend. The crusades and witchhunts were not done by gnostics, nor will you find any sufists involved in the modern terror acts... 
Tbh I am coming to the conclusion that religion is actually an externalized manifestation of the MBTI Feeling function (prob more Fe than Fi). All functions have their positive and negative pools. I think the idea of God is not necessarily irrational, considering Feeling is a rational function. If Thinking comes to the conclusion that God does not exist, then this does not make it any more valid considering the other rational function - other side of the coin - does include its existence. So likewise, I think atheism is also an extention of the Thinking function, but we can see militant atheism rising under high priest Richard Dawkins (NOT a good thing! (dogma))...

I personally am not religious, although I do have spiritual beliefs.

Edit: I also find your average nun to be more "religious" than your average priest, who are often just power-hungry wackos. Yet you have the priests commanding the nuns... I also once read a gnostic text saying that the biggest mistake religion did was turn God into a He instead of a She. They imply this could have been intended to introduce a patriarchical hierarchy within society, to benefit the Elite. Every religious head on Earth is male, be it the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the cleric or the guru... Until a female is allowed religious spokesperson/head, I will avoid these institutions at all cost. Masculinized religion is upside-down religion.


----------



## Alpha Shallows (Jan 20, 2013)

> Black-white views are indeed usually avoided by the Ne'er, since they block the very function itself. (That's why the xNxP's is probably the biggest anti-dogma type, since dogma is usually the result of black-white thinking.)


 (@phoenixpinion) - my quick quote thingy is acting odd!

^This. Revelling in the ambiguous. I'm always getting into trouble with people for pointing out grey areas.

@_arkigos_ did you see my earlier post re: your speculating that I may be SJ?

Apologies if you did, just wanted to see what you thought cos the SJ thing kinda threw me for a loop 

any other insight into function use much appreciated - I'm kind of understanding Ne more now (not "getting Ne" - what a thread title fail!)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

machneas said:


> ^This. Revelling in the ambiguous. I'm always getting into trouble with people for pointing out grey areas.


I think falling back to black and white thinking has far more to do with personal insecurities and in a Jungian sense, complexes, than it has to do with any specific function preference per se. There is a certain aspect where Si types do fear change yes, but it doesn't mean Si types need to experience the world as black and white. I often find that Si types have a very rich internal world.

Also, to experience something in black and white terms, as in, something is good and it just is and something is bad and it just is, would indicate some kind of judgement. I actually think judging types are more likely to engage in this kind of thinking and this is also my personal experience. I have seen Te doms have inferior Fi eruptions where morals just become. That is bad and that is the end of story and nothing is going to ever change their minds because nothing else than what they think is right is bad. The genuine irrational doesn't concern itself to place such ideals onto whatever is experienced because then one isn't just experiencing anymore, but one is drawing conclusions about those experiences. 

I also wish to point out that railing against how black and white thinking is bad is a good example of judgement since the basic idea is exactly that - it's bad. If you arrive at the conclusion that it's bad, then you have also made a judgement about the situation. As an irrational myself, I am not even sure I actually concern myself as much as whether something _is_ good or bad, or whether it's good or bad people think in terms of black and white. In the end, people just do. I'm more inclined to be interested to think about what it means to think in terms of black and white and what it logically implies.


> @_arkigos_ did you see my earlier post re: your speculating that I may be SJ?
> 
> Apologies if you did, just wanted to see what you thought cos the SJ thing kinda threw me for a loop
> 
> any other insight into function use much appreciated - I'm kind of understanding Ne more now (not "getting Ne" - what a thread title fail!)


I guess if you think my thinking is really fucking weird and you cannot understand my point of view in the exchange I had with arkigos, then you probably got something about your function preferences right.

As for Fe vs Fi, I think you should look into what I wrote about music and what I like about music. A lot of that was Fi-driven logic. If you can somewhat relate to what I mean as in, you can relate to where I am coming from with regards to what good music is, then it could be that you're an Fi type. Thus far though, I agree with cassiopeia that you seem more Fe. You certainly don't strike me as an Fi ego type and you don't really seem to ramble like Ne doms do either. I had a good example of this recently in the socionics subforum: 

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/158615-movie-characters-their-types.html#post4179381

Look at the difference in your writing styles and how you seem to express yourselves.


----------



## Alpha Shallows (Jan 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I think falling back to black and white thinking has far more to do with personal insecurities and in a Jungian sense, complexes, than it has to do with any specific function preference per se. There is a certain aspect where Si types do fear change yes, but it doesn't mean Si types need to experience the world as black and white. I often find that Si types have a very rich internal world.
> 
> Also, to experience something in black and white terms, as in, something is good and it just is and something is bad and it just is, would indicate some kind of judgement. I actually think judging types are more likely to engage in this kind of thinking and this is also my personal experience. I have seen Te doms have inferior Fi eruptions where morals just become. That is bad and that is the end of story and nothing is going to ever change their minds because nothing else than what they think is right is bad. The genuine irrational doesn't concern itself to place such ideals onto whatever is experienced because then one isn't just experiencing anymore, but one is drawing conclusions about those experiences.
> 
> ...


Interesting. This is good, learning! Maybe Ne isn't necessarily dominant because there was something about it that just seemed hard to relate to, and maybe I thought I wasn't understanding it properly when actually it could just be that it doesn't fit.

To go back to the music point, I guess my appreciation for it comes primarily through lyrics as opposed to the actual sound. My favourite music is quite poetic in a way, and can paint an emotional and physical image through words. My imagination tends to follow words and lyrics to quite a vivid imaginary world, almost where I feel like I am the songwriter. I kind of vicariously explore emotions and situations I've never felt myself in this way. I'll often find myself listening to a song that I find lyrically stunning, and just thinking "I'd love to have written that, it's genius."

That's not to say that I don't enjoy music in the physical sense, as you outline above, but it's certainly not what it's about for me. I do love music that has a great beat or makes you want to absorb it, but I'll listen to music primarily for the lyrics about 60% of the time, which I notice is kind of unusual as most consider music primarily a sensory experience, as far as I can see.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

machneas said:


> (@phoenixpinion) - my quick quote thingy is acting odd!
> 
> ^This. Revelling in the ambiguous. I'm always getting into trouble with people for pointing out grey areas.
> 
> ...


My 2 cents: you're not an SJ. I think you're pretty much an xNFP (SJ is the NP inferior, so the NP does have SJ and vice versa, but in the unconscious instead of the conscious. I'm often able to get along with the SJ's better than other S-types, because we naturally cover eachother's weaknesses), based on my limited online exposure to you . Pointing out the grey areas is not really an SJ thing. (Not saying that SJ's are necessarily black-white thinkers, but they won't really be the ones pointing out the fallacies of it either.) Also, the thread title is idd so fail that it's become pure winning.

Also, @_ephemereality_:
Yes, railing against how/concluding that black-white thinking is bad is a judgement, but you have to understand that this may simply be the auxiliary rational function kicking in to the observations of the primary irrational function. I think you're overemphasizing the dominance of the dominant function. You're in fact assuming that no one is ever able to "peak beyond their ego" (the dom. being the ego) and you may even be limiting yourself to this assumption.
It's like the intolerant/tolerant paradox. If you're tolerant, you let everyone do their thing, which includes letting the intolerants do their thing aswell. Yet is tolerance of intolerance really being tolerant, since the intolerants will quickly start imposing rules and dictates and thereby doing away with tolerant society?
Real tolerance implies also being intolerant against intolerance. You may ask, but who decides what is intolerance? Simple: whichever is diametrically opposed to tolerance.
This can be mathematically verified:
Tolerance: +
Intolerance: -
Tolerance = tolerance & tolerance -> ++ = +
Tolerance = intolerance & intolerance -> -- = +
Intolerance = tolerance & intolerance -> +- = -
Intolerance = intolerance & tolerance -> -+ = -
Point being is that if you let intolerance slide because you like to see yourself as tolerant to everything, you are on the side of intolerance. Intolerance can only grow if you're being tolerant to it. This is actually why Western society is on the decline, we have become tolerant of everything, even intolerance. Only white blood cells can fight (intolerant) pathogens, that is because white blood cells, unlike other cells, are intolerant to them. Similarly, Western society is currently like a body without an immune system. Bodies without an immune system eventually become sick, pathogenized, take on the intolerant mindset of the invader. Intolerant fascism is the ultimate outcome of overtolerant liberalism.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> My 2 cents: you're not an SJ. I think you're pretty much an xNFP (SJ is the NP inferior, so the NP does have SJ and vice versa, but in the unconscious instead of the conscious. I'm often able to get along with the SJ's better than other S-types, because we naturally cover eachother's weaknesses), based on my limited online exposure to you . Pointing out the grey areas is not really an SJ thing. (Not saying that SJ's are necessarily black-white thinkers, but they won't really be the ones pointing out the fallacies of it either.) Also, the thread title is idd so fail that it's become pure winning.
> 
> Also, @_ephemereality_:
> Yes, railing against how/concluding that black-white thinking is bad is a judgement, but you have to understand that this may simply be the auxiliary rational function kicking in to the observations of the primary irrational function. I think you're overemphasizing the dominance of the dominant function. You're in fact assuming that no one is ever able to "peak beyond their ego" (the dom. being the ego) and you may even be limiting yourself to this assumption.
> ...


No, this isn't just the production of a wonky auxiliary, not when it also comes with this wonky Ti and an ounce of intuition of paranoid character, suggesting it's of more inferior position. This just doesn't make any sense to me. It's not this simple. Reality is more complex than this.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> No, this isn't just the production of a wonky auxiliary, not when it also comes with this wonky Ti and an ounce of intuition of paranoid character, suggesting it's of more inferior position. This just doesn't make any sense to me. It's not this simple. *Reality is more complex than this.*


No, your mind is more complex than this. Reality doesn't have to be complex, you are just projecting your mind upon it. The rational mind can observe the complexity of reality, but that perceived complexity is simply the outcome of very simplistic/primitive/natural processes. A dog perceives reality just as well as you do, but to the dog it is very simple, not complex at all. It's simply a different angle of perception, you only see one angle, the complex one. It's cool if you say: "To my viewpoint, reality is very complex." but that's not how you say it, you say it as if it's a fact. It's an OPINION.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> No, your mind is more complex than this. Reality doesn't have to be complex, you are just projecting your mind upon it. The rational mind can observe the complexity of reality, but that perceived complexity is simply the outcome of very simplistic/primitive/natural processes. A dog perceives reality just as well as you do, but to the dog it is very simple, not complex at all. It's simply a different angle of perception, you only see one angle, the complex one. It's cool if you say: "To my viewpoint, reality is very complex." but that's not how you say it, you say it as if it's a fact. It's an OPINION.


I have no words.

...


----------



## MrsAndrewJacoby (Apr 11, 2013)

phoenixpinion said:


> I started to plan recently. Can I get a cookie now?


Certainly! :wink:


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

machneas said:


> Hello there all you happy people,
> 
> I've been trying to test myself and understand my type for quite a while now, and I'm pretty much down to ENFP or INFP.
> 
> ...



Really, the difference between Ne and Ni is scope and end-goal. Ne is open ended - it correlates to tangentially expanding based on perceived possibilities. Ni is closed ended - it correlates to somehow honing in on an idea through a bunch of different situations, scenarios, or data. Ni is more of an inward moving spiral - possibilities are eliminated and things are sort of boiled down to their essence. 
Where Ne explodes into a million ideas, Ni finds the one true idea that has trended for ages.


----------



## Malkovich (Feb 18, 2010)

kadda1212 said:


> Ne is in some sense the opposite of Se. Se sees and is aware of everything that is there. Ne sees everything that is not there. All the possibilities, everything that could be there.


Came here to say that.
I never know how to describe Ne, because it's supposed to be some mystical ability of getting some random bouts of inspiration when the muse strikes or something, but it's just not _anything _for me, my input in the whole thing is minimal. 

It's exactly like simple awareness of everything (or, a lot) that is there, just in the landscape of ideas. I do nothing but just _see_ something that's staring me in the face. It's like if ideas were all trees and most people for some reason just saw the nearest one or two, and I could see quite a bit further than that, and everyone asked me where I'm seeing so many trees, but the only mystery to me is how they aren't? To me, they're huge, clearly visible objects standing right in front of me, there's no mystery here, how to explain how I see them, I just do. Because they're fucking there.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I have no words.
> 
> ...


whatever man, you are just so blinded by your own ego/dominant function that you fail to see that the other functions' perspectives are equally valid. Did it never came to your 'brilliant' mind that perhaps the only reason why you think reality needs to be complex is because you lead with two complex functions: Ni and Te? Sure, you have a very intellectualized understanding of what the other functions do and how they operate (you understand them through Ni and Te), but when it comes to actual first-hand experience, you are like a chicken without a head. It's also lame how when someone tries to educate you instead of the other way around as what usually happens around here, you resort to sarcasm, as you did here, because you cannot seem to handle being wrong at anything or even challenged (is it because you were raised in competitive Korea?). 

Unlike the rest of people here, I have no desire at all to hail your 'supreme understanding' of mbti and reality. On the contrary, you're just brambling Ni-nonsense. You don't know how Fe, Si, ... work at all, you are just describing them from an outsider's perspective. I'd rather listen to someone who has actually tried to suppress his dominant function to get directly in-touch with the shadow functions (an insider's perspective) than someone who has never been able to venture outside his dominant function (probably because you have no desire to, as it would destroy your grandiose perception of yourself, or shall I say, your mind. You probably even think you are your mind...). Yes, I would rather even listen to an ESFP or ESTJ if they actually had direct experience with the shadow functions.

You think you're the mature one here, but you're not, you're just hiding your immaturity and insecurity behind complex/deep words, behind your dominant function(s). As a studier of Jung you should know that developping them to extremes leads to the False Self, not the True Self.


----------



## Quork (Aug 17, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Maybe, I was just taking at what she was saying at face value since those were her own words. I could write a deep analytical post about how love and religion relate, but the idea I was trying to express here is that she just mentioned it so briefly as if it spoke for itself, being some kind of objective truth, whereas to me as an Ni type, there's a lot of depth to get in there that I personally experience within.


Well to add to this discussion, as a Ne user, I find that I say little and don't discuss further because once I see something in another way I tend to change my mind and I end up in this never ending cycle of not being able to make up my mind. If I were to describe it orally I might find a different idea in my head and immediately change my opinion 'causing me to seem very unreliable. I'm so fickle so leaving things broader says more than I ever could by describing what I mean, potentially confusing others, and also in a way lying because my opinion constantly is in flux (that's redundant, but it gets my point across about how fickle I am). It's a problem I have to work on, but I find when I look back on things and what I said I can change my mind to a totally different extreme of what I said before. Someone in this forum once mentioned the horrible Fi-Si loop that INFPs can get into and I can definitely relate to it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

phoenixpinion said:


> whatever man, you are just so blinded by your own ego/dominant function that you fail to see that the other functions' perspectives are equally valid. Did it never came to your 'brilliant' mind that perhaps the only reason why you think reality needs to be complex is because you lead with two complex functions: Ni and Te? Sure, you have a very intellectualized understanding of what the other functions do and how they operate (you understand them through Ni and Te), but when it comes to actual first-hand experience, you are like a chicken without a head. It's also lame how when someone tries to educate you instead of the other way around as what usually happens around here, you resort to sarcasm, as you did here, because you cannot seem to handle being wrong at anything or even challenged (is it because you were raised in competitive Korea?).
> 
> Unlike the rest of people here, I have no desire at all to hail your 'supreme understanding' of mbti and reality. On the contrary, you're just brambling Ni-nonsense. You don't know how Fe, Si, ... work at all, you are just describing them from an outsider's perspective. I'd rather listen to someone who has actually tried to suppress his dominant function to get directly in-touch with the shadow functions (an insider's perspective) than someone who has never been able to venture outside his dominant function (probably because you have no desire to, as it would destroy your grandiose perception of yourself, or shall I say, your mind. You probably even think you are your mind...). Yes, I would rather even listen to an ESFP or ESTJ if they actually had direct experience with the shadow functions.
> 
> You think you're the mature one here, but you're not, you're just hiding your immaturity and insecurity behind complex/deep words, behind your dominant function(s). As a studier of Jung you should know that developping them to extremes leads to the False Self, not the True Self.


Go on, keep up projecting your own insecurities on others.


----------



## phoenixpinion (Dec 27, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Go on, keep up projecting your own insecurities on others.


That's another brilliant rationalization to avoid looking yourself in the eye. I have looked myself in the eye numerous times, more and more as I continue to grow older. I accept that I am sometimes insecure, like every healthy human being would do. That's what happens when you look yourself in the eye. However, as a result of this practice, the insecurity eventually gets replaced by true self-confidence, unlike the fake self-confidence you portray (which is just a building around the deep underlying/hidden/alien insecurity). What I mean is that you just keep on indulging in abstract bullshit, and you know it. Yes, I said it, it's pure bullshit. Unless your abstract understanding is balanced by physical experience and/or first-hand evidence, it is worth nothing more than an exercise in cerebral indulgence (the opposite of physical indulgence, but not any more admirable/mature per se). Perhaps you would indeed make a perfect MBTI professional or pop-psychologist, but you would make the worst scientist imaginable. (You would twist the facts/results to your bias/understanding instead of the other way around.) It is science that brought society where it's at, not pop-psychology. I have expressed my disgust for the overall blind acceptance of the typology system since I first joined this joint. Because the fact that everybody can twist it to their personal understanding (as there is no general academic consensus or evidence) is perfect for not only gullible fools, but also for (semi-)charlatans like yourself who like to lead the gullible fools. 

But hey, this is machneas' thread, not yours or mine.


(I already predict what your response/reaction will be, you will again see this as a rant a, again a sign that I am trying to protect my underlying insecurity. I'll tell you a secret: IT ISN'T. It's not because you're an INTJ (Ni shadow of my Ne) that I can't deal with you, it's because you're a narcissistic INTJ. I've had narcissists in my life since the day I was born (my father for instance). I know what they are like, how they think, operate, see themselves and others. Someone who had a more fortunate narcissistic-free past is also bound to fall in one of their webs sooner or later, seeing as they have not been able to develop a mental vaccine yet because of their lack of exposure. That is why so few are able to see through you here. One thing is certain: There is no "winning" or "beating" a narcissist, be it physical or mental. That's why I'm not actually trying to outsmart you, but expose you.)


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@_phoenixpinion_; @_machneas_ -

((post is too damn big, so I put it in a bag of holding...))


* *




Sorry for not replying directly to stuff - I am a walking tangent and shiny concepts catch my eye and lead me on wayward paths to nowhere. 

So, here is the deal. I know a girl - whom I've known for many many years - and I love to discuss conceptual 'big picture' things with her. She gets it all really quick and is very bright... she shoots stuff back and it's always a great discussion. The reason I like to talk to her so much is because we GET SOMEWHERE. This is because she is ultimately focused on bringing all we talk about into a real applicable system. She is great at tying it all to the real world - coming up with quick little practical suggestions for applying or using all that we discuss... and she is great at keeping the discussion fairly on-topic. She doesn't mind the tangents at all - but she is great at curving them all back into something that will be useful. 

She works as QA for a team of Linux server admins - she used to be one, and now she helps the teams not suck as bad at doing their job. She enjoys making the whole system work better, but doesn't love having to be the police, in a sense, to the people who are her friends. She is an avid fan of fantasy fiction, and enjoys writing short stories - usually quite mirthful ones - usually depicting rather fantastical things. She is a table top roleplayer - she is a complete slob and her house is chaos - and she is about to marry the biggest never-grew-up techno-nerd that ever lived. She is the black sheep of her family for rejecting the religion and lifestyle of her family for generations on end - and was a wayward child in many ways, hanging out with all the 'N' kids, staying out for days at night clubs, and dabbling in all sorts of vices that were wildly taboo in her upbringing and accumulating tons of credit card debt by the time she was 18. She never went to college and struggles to save money. She, now in her early 30s, is going to school to become an accountant. 

Guessed her type yet? 

She is an ISTJ. A rather typical ISTJ, if you ask me... the crowd that she assimilated herself to was predominantly N, and her waywardness was the result of her sensible rejection of a failed social system. She struggles sometimes to fully grasp what Ne is, even though she aptly employs it, and indulges it, all the time. 

I relate this to make a point. Stereotypes will not do. At all. The great irony is that so often people say 'I can't be SJ because I am not like SJs'. Get the joke? 

That is an example of Si cognition! Comparison based on that which is observable. That is the go-to argument that SJs use to say they aren't SJ. They don't fit the descriptions .. or the stereotype. Well, an Ne type would not use Si as a go-to. 

Look through this thread. Most of the people here identifying as an NP type populate their post with hairbrained ideas (conceptual tangents and imaginary frameworks) - theories that are very very light on details or Si comparisons. These people are using N(e). 

Machneas.. your posts follow a fairly consistent theme... you express your enthusiasm and appreciation... talk about how great it all is and how you've tried to induct it all but still aren't completely certain... then relate how you've tried to apply it to yourself and see how you might be doing these things. Si is your go-to. Ne tries to pull it in, but has to lean on Si to apply it to really grasp it all. You do not theoretically tangent like @_phoenixpinion_, for example, does. You focus on how it all manifests. Si. This isn't exclusive of Ne... but it's more at the ready, it is the easier tool, the more natural tool.

This is what is cool about Si types. They are fully capable of Ne. They are, in a sense, Ne types. But, instead of floating around the Ether with theories that aren't tied to the ground and will all just float off into space (after being shot at and set adrift by @_ephemereality_)... sort of endlessly. No, the well-developed SJ will make good use of it all. 

Since I think I will get more purchase using observable comparisons (Si)... I will do that now.

Behold, an ESFJ: Lexxy Douglass - illustrator and comic artist, whose Cloud Factory web comic Kickstarter broke records and got her nearly $100k (which was ENORMOUS for that category):






Here is her website, with her incredible imaginative art and stories.

Behold, an ENFP: Amanda Palmer - musician and artist, whose Kickstarter broke records as well, getting her over $1 million dollars (which may seem bigger, but it's a more popular category):






...and her interesting, and oh-so ENFP response to Sinead O'Connor's letter to Miley Cyrus that is all causing hubbub right now.

Isn't it interesting that of the two, one might even argue that Lexxy is the more creative. Amanda is more haphazard and her work is invariably more focused on real things... where Lexxy doesn't have much to say about the world and has devoted her life and effort to telling fantasy stories - mainly through impeccable art. You might find it interesting that Lexxy is notorious for being late to everything and struggling with managing and keeping track of time. Typical SJ, right?

I typed Lexxy from a web show called Strip Search (reality TV show competition for web comic creators) .. a competition that was won by an ISTJ, who won by being able to make the most clever and funny comics on the fly... and who is very talented at doing this: Camp Weedonwantcha —*by Katie Rice

Anyway, the moral of the story here is that SJ doesn't fit into a little box, nor do our stereotypes work for it. Brass tacks: not feeling like you can relate yourself to what you see as SJ is an example of Si and most of your posts are pretty heavy on Si in general. An NP will primarily use ever-expanding concept in their thought and language. They will have a good handle on this and will find that grasping concepts (like what Ne is) and jumping right back with an ever-expanding new angle on it will be the most natural default thing for them. That is what Ne does. Seeing how it manifests in themselves in comparison to what they've observed is what Si does. Which do you do more? Which is most comfortable? It also may be interesting if you could relate what you imagine SJ to be. 



Malkovich said:


> Came here to say that.
> I never know how to describe Ne, because it's supposed to be some mystical ability of getting some random bouts of inspiration when the muse strikes or something, but it's just not _anything _for me, my input in the whole thing is minimal.
> 
> It's exactly like simple awareness of everything (or, a lot) that is there, just in the landscape of ideas. I do nothing but just _see_ something that's staring me in the face. It's like if ideas were all trees and most people for some reason just saw the nearest one or two, and I could see quite a bit further than that, and everyone asked me where I'm seeing so many trees, but the only mystery to me is how they aren't? To me, they're huge, clearly visible objects standing right in front of me, there's no mystery here, how to explain how I see them, I just do. Because they're fucking there.


It's difficult to translate Ne back into language, and since Ne is so whimsical... it seems we never do it the same way twice. But, it isn't difficulty in understanding it or applying it... it's simply difficult to take something that is fundamentally outside of description and describe it. Nevertheless, it is painfully obvious to us that it is a dominant aspect of us. It is us. I liked your description, not because of the usefulness of it.. but more the uselessness of it. I feel like we are all taking turns trying to hit a bullseye with arrows and some shots are good and others are bad, but we all can see the target just the same. Ne types will all know what you were trying to hit.



MoodyMoonGoon said:


> Well to add to this discussion, as a Ne user, I find that I say little and don't discuss further because once I see something in another way I tend to change my mind and I end up in this never ending cycle of not being able to make up my mind. If I were to describe it orally I might find a different idea in my head and immediately change my opinion 'causing me to seem very unreliable. I'm so fickle so leaving things broader says more than I ever could by describing what I mean, potentially confusing others, and also in a way lying because my opinion constantly is in flux (that's redundant, but it gets my point across about how fickle I am). It's a problem I have to work on, but I find when I look back on things and what I said I can change my mind to a totally different extreme of what I said before. Someone in this forum once mentioned the horrible Fi-Si loop that INFPs can get into and I can definitely relate to it.


Yes! ... and it somehow doesn't really matter that it totally changed. Of course it changed! Opinions are the start of a discussion, not the end of them! How can we get any sense of anything until we have put them all up on the chopping block? The funny thing is we will nevertheless fight for them in the moment - to give them a good showing before they go down in flames.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

When I'm speaking to someone about pretty much Ne-thing, I can come across as being very indecisive, uncertain, and ... Well, downright annoying. Because I also speak with a kind of matter-of-fact arrogance at the same time. 

So, what I say sounds like I really have this opinion and I want to fight about it, but really, I'm just processing it and figuring it out by looking at it from all sides and hearing other people's thoughts-- Getting more ideas from other people, weighing the ideas I already have, and deciding which ones to use based upon that.

This is illustrated very well in the show House. Though I haven't seen many episodes, the white board comes to mind. He'll write down the possibilities based upon the ideas of himself, others, and he'll cross-check them and analyze them and have other people help him cross them out, because he can't cross them out by himself. He seems to come across as already knowing the answer, but he's only processing. There comes a point in every episode where his eyes will light up, to imply he's found the connections he was looking for, he's discovered a solution. Sometimes I never come to that point, but when I do, it's awesome.

I will start by making a statement, rationalize it verbally, then backtrack and say, 'No, wait, what about this?, or This? Or this?.. I've been known to change my mind 3 times in one sentence. Maybe an exaggeration, maybe not. Maybe it would help me to have a white board.

I do know that Ne-strong people seem to have this need to verbalize their ideas and thoughts to others in order to process them. To my ITJ, this is confusing. 

He expects me to have a decision, or an opinion about everything, because he does. 

He will cite his opinion, and then I will cite mine, and then it should be over and done with. But, I continue going over it. And he sees no practical or applicable use for that. It doesn't make sense to say the same thing over and over again in different ways. (To his mind, that's what I'm doing.)

To me, I'm not looking at different angles to solve one problem. I'm taking in more problems, more angles, and finding a solution might not even be my desired goal, as much as my goal is playing around and finding my way around my thought process, and figuring out what makes sense to my subjective worldview. I'm coming up with ideas on the spot, and they branch into more and more ideas. This can be irritating to those who want a direct solution.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> I do know that Ne-strong people seem to have this need to verbalize their ideas and thoughts to others in order to process them. To my ITJ, this is confusing.
> 
> He expects me to have a decision, or an opinion about everything, because he does.
> 
> He will cite his opinion, and then I will cite mine, and then it should be over and done with. But, I continue going over it. And he sees no practical or applicable use for that. It doesn't make sense to say the same thing over and over again in different ways. (To his mind, that's what I'm doing.)


I've observed that in other types as well, an ESFJ coworker of mine has never had a thought that wasn't immediately verbalized and I myself do find it useful to discuss/debate to refine ideas.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> I've observed that in other types as well, an ESFJ coworker of mine has never had a thought that wasn't immediately verbalized and I myself do find it useful to discuss/debate to refine ideas.


I'm sure that _any_ type can have the tendency to discuss ideas. Ideas are not exclusive to Ne-dom or aux. I do realize that, and I hope I didn't unintentionally imply that they were. They don't possess a monopoly.

The motivations behind _why_ one discusses ideas might be explored, and might even yield stark contrast between the types. Or, it might not. 

I was illustrating my own experiences with my ideas coupled with my thought process, and that it might be common to this particular function (In tandem with another, maybe?)... 

And that it seems to require elucidating one's thoughts through conversational discourse, rather than introspection. I know that I _can _introspect, but it's _far _easier and natural for me to verbalize my thought process and work through it with someone(s) else.


----------

