# Ni, Ne & Metaphors



## Fischer (Aug 16, 2012)

Verity3 said:


> I think it's a matter of different styles of intuition being better in different situations. In a competitive situation, or in a scenario where you have to choose one best alternative, Ni rocks at seeing them all, and then sort of trimming the fat. In a cooperative situation, or in a scenario where you want to conserve all the good options, Ne might be better at holding onto multiple alternatives in tension. (This is an idea I've been mulling over this week, it could be way off.)


I am amazing under pressure and when tension is in the air. It brings out the best in me.

Not everything has to do with you personality type. Some things are simply human. I see big contributors disowning all these posts that relate human qualities or reactions to their personality type. 

For example, the INFJ doorslam has been debunked.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

conundrum94 said:


> I am amazing under pressure and when tension is in the air. It brings out the best in me.
> 
> Not everything has to do with you personality type. Some things are simply human. I see big contributors disowning all these posts that relate human qualities or reactions to their personality type.
> 
> For example, the INFJ doorslam has been debunked.


I meant, holding multiple alternatives in tension *with each other*. For example, you don't have to denounce feminism to embrace egalitarianism; you just have to hold them in tension, letting each inform the other. Forcing a choice between one or the other is a false dilemma IMO. 

But yeah, all this analysis of functions could just be people like me extrapolating personal experience :/


----------



## frayonka (Jan 3, 2013)

conundrum94 said:


> Ni vs Si is rather easy. It's the forest versus the tree analogy. If you see the tree you are Si but seeing the forest it Ni.


 I just knew the "concrete real life example" part would fly out of the window sooner rather than later.  The point being that when you draw iNtuitive conclusions to predict how a situation may develop or what something means, you are generally not aware of the specific connections to past that the formula you happen to be using has?



conundrum94 said:


> Limited in this way yet we usually have a keen sense for our business. When experiencing new things if I connect it to something I know then the intuit comes out in me. On the other hand, if I fail to make that connection then the interest flies out the window*[SUB]1[/SUB]*.
> 
> *1*: In those situations(failing to make the connection to myself) it's as if I heard what you said and I couldn't process it. I could have been talking to a baby. I retain about the same amount from each interaction.
> 
> ...


 I have lived under the impression that this "self-centeredness" is rather common for young people regardless of type... Thanks for the clarification, I have to sleep on it. 

If you were to read a poem, for example, how would you "relate it to yourself" to find its deeper meaning? (Or would you do such a thing in the first place?)



Verity3 said:


> By citing this example, I meant to illustrate a case of Ni building internal symbols (or "messages") rather than perceiving external symbols (or "messages"). It is not that Ni users are selfish. Rather, it is the cognitive function Ni that is self-centered much like Fi is self-centered. It is just something that factors into how an individual's mind works.


 So you'd say that Ne gives more thought to what the object is possibly intented to mean than Ni?



Verity3 said:


> I think it's a matter of different styles of intuition being better in different situations. In a competitive situation, or in a scenario where you have to choose one best alternative, Ni rocks at seeing them all, and then sort of trimming the fat. In a cooperative situation, or in a scenario where you want to conserve all the good options, Ne might be better at holding onto multiple alternatives in tension. (This is an idea I've been mulling over this week, it could be way off.)


 Are you accusing me of using little to no Ni? :laughing:


Okay now I have repeated enough of what every description ever has stated of these functions and it may be starting to make sense again. but I needed to let go of my pre-conceptions for a moment lol


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

fyi, A simile is a metaphor, but not all metaphors are similes


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

frayonka said:


> So you'd say that Ne gives more thought to what the object is possibly inten[d]ed to mean than Ni?


Exactly. I hadn't thought of this before conundrum provided that article, but now I think that is likely the tendency. (Though it may reflect immature/toxic Ni more than healthy Ni; I haven't studied these functions enough yet to make a guess. But at this point I could see healthy Ni sifting through possibly intended meanings before settling on the most likely one.)



frayonka said:


> Are you accusing me of using little to no Ni? :laughing:


No, I don't know your type. Are YOU accusing yourself of using little to no Ni? :wink:



frayonka said:


> Thanks for the clarification, I have to sleep on it.


I have been told by a Ni dom that this need to sleep on things is Ni.


----------



## Fischer (Aug 16, 2012)

frayonka said:


> I just knew the "concrete real life example" part would fly out of the window sooner rather than later.  The point being that when you draw iNtuitive conclusions to predict how a situation may develop or what something means, you are generally not aware of the specific connections to past that the formula you happen to be using has?


I agree that intuits cannot always verbalize the connections that they are making. That is not the easiest thing because the second function likes to help in that kind of situation. 

Intuits have scattered minds where we are thinking of many different ideas at the same time. When someone asks an intuit to retrace one of those paths it is not clear because I was thinking 100 different things at the same time. Apposed to Si that has less problems gathering the information previously collected.



frayonka said:


> I have lived under the impression that this "self-centeredness" is rather common for young people regardless of type... Thanks for the clarification, I have to sleep on it.
> 
> If you were to read a poem, for example, how would you "relate it to yourself" to find its deeper meaning? (Or would you do such a thing in the first place?)


This is a very good question. In songs and poems to have greater understanding I must connect it to myself. For example, there was a thread made recently that asked members to post songs that reminded them of love and sexuality. This was so easy for me. I pick songs I want to listen to by my mood. So i just thought of moods that have to do with love and posted songs I would listen in those situtaions. I did not just pick a song that reminded me of love. I picked songs that have to do with the moods love gives me. I only thought of my love and nobody else.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

I'm going to have a go. Correct me if I'm wrong 

I think both deal with metaphors and similes, but in different ways.

Ne is extroverted, it looks toward the world and communicates it. That is, it readily sees the connections between things, and can explain things through these connections, such as metaphors, similes, analogies, etc. That is Ne plays with metaphors and these connections, it relates many ideas together, sees how things change by altering other objects.

Ni deals with symbolism in the internal world. It deals with how the user itself interprets the objects, and how this connects with internal archetypes. Seeing different perspectives is like viewing the same object in different ways, that is what it represents to that person. The internal imagery is also highly symbolic, and may symbolically represent the users current experience.

Ne utilises, changes and manipulates metaphors. Ni embodies the essence of what the metaphor is.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Verity3 said:


> Exactly. I hadn't thought of this before conundrum provided that article, but now I think that is likely the tendency. (Though it may reflect immature/toxic Ni more than healthy Ni; I haven't studied these functions enough yet to make a guess. But at this point I could see healthy Ni sifting through possibly intended meanings before settling on the most likely one.)


Picking correct choices etc. is the realm of judgement, not perception. Perception just perceives. It does not care about whether something is correct or incorrect, because in the realm of perception things just are. 



> I have been told by a Ni dom that this need to sleep on things is Ni.


No, it's not. 



conundrum94 said:


> I agree that intuits cannot always verbalize the connections that they are making. That is not the easiest thing because the second function likes to help in that kind of situation.


No, the reason why they cannot is because intuition is unconscious in that sense. 



> Intuits have scattered minds where we are thinking of many different ideas at the same time. When someone asks an intuit to retrace one of those paths it is not clear because I was thinking 100 different things at the same time. Apposed to Si that has less problems gathering the information previously collected.


Has nothing to do with intuition. 



> This is a very good question. In songs and poems to have greater understanding I must connect it to myself. For example, there was a thread made recently that asked members to post songs that reminded them of love and sexuality. This was so easy for me. I pick songs I want to listen to by my mood. So i just thought of moods that have to do with love and posted songs I would listen in those situtaions. I did not just pick a song that reminded me of love. I picked songs that have to do with the moods love gives me. I only thought of my love and nobody else.


Moods is likely more related to feeling tones and thus also, the feeling function. Got little to do with intuition in itself, though it could play a role in the sense of picking out archetypes.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Picking correct choices etc. is the realm of judgement, not perception. Perception just perceives. It does not care about whether something is correct or incorrect, because in the realm of perception things just are.
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> ...


You crack me up. :crazy:

Yes, Ni is a perception function, but it is the most judge-y of the perception functions. Both Ne and Ni are trying to eventually obtain something optimal, but Ni narrows the alternatives down more quickly.

Unless I'm completely wrong. Which, apparently, you are more than happy to conclude.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Verity3 said:


> You crack me up. :crazy:
> 
> Yes, Ni is a perception function,* but it is the most judge-y of the perception functions. *


No, it's not. Perception is perception, regardless if it's introverted or extroverted. To clarify: As an example of Ni, I may for example say: My body feels like ice, heavy and frozen over. It's like standing on top of a mountain and you are all alone, standing there with a heavy blizzard blowing around you, looking across the frigid landscape. The blizzard entails you, it freezes you to the bone to the point of cracking. You harden, becoming ice yourself. There's no heat or warmth here, there's just you, on top of the world."

What does this mean? It's a description of my internal emotional state and because of the subjective nature of the description (introverted), there's no right or wrong here. There's no judgement; it's just perception. I'm perceiving myself, how I see myself. It's like saying when you see a bird sitting on the tree that you can actually contest its existence even though you just experienced a bird sitting on the tree. You can contest the existence of the bird, but if you are going to do that, you are automatically moving into the realm of judgement (it would be Ti). Perception doms don't question their perceptions; judgement doms do. 



> Both Ne and Ni are trying to eventually obtain something optimal, but Ni narrows the alternatives down more quickly.


No, Ni does not care about what's optimal, neither does Ne. Especially taking shortcuts etc. in order to find the most efficient route of action is Te though can also in some cases point to Fe. 



> Unless I'm completely wrong. Which, apparently, you are more than happy to conclude.


Yes, you are wrong.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Entropic said:


> No, it's not. Perception is perception, regardless if it's introverted or extroverted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, I posed a false dilemma


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Verity3 said:


> Sorry, I posed a false dilemma


Reread my edited post on Ni.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Reread my edited post on Ni.


Okay.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Entropic said:


> No, it's not. Perception is perception, regardless if it's introverted or extroverted. To clarify: As an example of Ni, I may for example say: My body feels like ice, heavy and frozen over. It's like standing on top of a mountain and you are all alone, standing there with a heavy blizzard blowing around you, looking across the frigid landscape. The blizzard entails you, it freezes you to the bone to the point of cracking. You harden, becoming ice yourself. There's no heat or warmth here, there's just you, on top of the world."
> 
> What does this mean? It's a description of my internal emotional state and because of the subjective nature of the description (introverted), there's no right or wrong here. There's no judgement; it's just perception. I'm perceiving myself, how I see myself.


But you're not just taking in information; you're doing something with it. How would you describe what you're doing with it? Obviously, in this example it's not judging right or wrong. But what is it you are doing in addition to taking in the info? Ordering it? Codifying it? Interpreting it at all?



Entropic said:


> Perception doms don't question their perceptions; judgement doms do.


So you're saying that Fe-Ni and Te-Ni question their perceptions, but Ni-Fe and Ni-Te do not? Why would you believe that Te and Fe don't do that in the auxiliary position? And if this is the case, do you find that it impedes accuracy, and if so, do you simply not care? (Or does your Ni not care while your Te does?)



Entropic said:


> No, Ni does not care about what's optimal, neither does Ne. Especially taking shortcuts etc. in order to find the most efficient route of action is Te though can also in some cases point to Fe.


I agree that Ne (auxiliary, at least) doesn't care about shortcuts or efficient action. I was referring to optimal result: optimal symbol, optimal description. I hear you saying that the "optimal" part is entirely supplied by the J function. How, then, would you describe the difference between Ni and Ne? 

(I am interested in hearing from other Ni doms as well on these questions.)


----------



## Fischer (Aug 16, 2012)

Entropic said:


> No, the reason why they cannot is because intuition is unconscious in that sense.


No it's not.
See I can do that too. You responses to this thread have been meaningless.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Verity3 said:


> But you're not just taking in information; you're doing something with it. How would you describe what you're doing with it? Obviously, in this example it's not judging right or wrong. But what is it you are doing in addition to taking in the info? Ordering it? Codifying it? Interpreting it at all?


No. Nothing. I'm describing a vision or an image that I perceive. I'm not doing anything more than describing it. I get an impression of what something is, so I describe it the way it's perceived to me. 



> So you're saying that Fe-Ni and Te-Ni question their perceptions, but Ni-Fe and Ni-Te do not? Why would you believe that Te and Fe don't do that in the auxiliary position? And if this is the case, do you find that it impedes accuracy, and if so, do you simply not care? (Or does your Ni not care while your Te does?)


You need to dissociate from the judgement functions. The auxiliary works stand-alone. You don't need Te to be _linked_ with Ni in this way. This is why I like socionics in the sense that socionics thinks that all the functions deal with different modes and types of information, so you don't need a perceiving function in order to observe the world. Feeling types can for example observe the nature of values and feeling tones, but the important part is that feeling types do that through categorization; that's why feeling is a judgement function. 



> I agree that Ne (auxiliary, at least) doesn't care about shortcuts or efficient action. I was referring to optimal result: optimal symbol, optimal description. I hear you saying that the "optimal" part is entirely supplied by the J function. How, then, would you describe the difference between Ni and Ne?


There is no optimal. It just is. And the difference between Ne and Ni is very simple: Ne being extroverted, is oriented towards and by the object; Ni being introverted away from it. 



conundrum94 said:


> No it's not.
> See I can do that too. You responses to this thread have been meaningless.


Yes, intuition is by definition unconscious: 



> Jung defined intuition as *"perception via the unconscious"*: using sense-perception only as a starting point, to bring forth ideas, images, possibilities, ways out of a blocked situation, *by a process that is mostly unconscious*.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(psychology)#In_Jungian_psychology


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

I think metaphor vs simile is a good way of modeling it in a minimalist way. As a user above said, a simile is always a metaphor but not vice versa, the difference is in how it presents itself:
From what I understand of Ni dom types, reality is actually _experienced_ as a metaphor. Awesome example imo, once I was in my INTJ's room, there was a half finished painting sitting in a corner and suddenly he said "I feel like there's a child in here, it's really disturbing". He meant because the painting hadn't reached it's full stage of growth. But he really experienced it as there being a child in the room. A metaphor is literally using one thing to represent another, making it into a symbol, meaning you turn away from what it is as an object (extraversion) in favor of something that exists only within the human mind (introversion).
I could easily have seen the painting that way myself if I'd thought to do so, but I'd have to consciously make the comparison "unfinished = it's _like_ a human child" (simile, making an association between two distinct things), and I'd never actually experience a child being in the room.


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

I just use metaphors, analogies, anecdotes, and similes to introduce the concept I am speaking about in a familiar context. My Si-aux mom and Se-dom friend both regularly and impeccably apply these literary devices in a colloquial milieu. This is not related to their MBTI type, these are all tools for easier understanding.

The real question is: Do Ne and Ni users have an instinctual advantage when it comes to the easiness of coming up with, and conveying metaphors, allusions, analogies, etc.?


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Entropic said:


> No. Nothing. I'm describing a vision or an image that I perceive. I'm not doing anything more than describing it. I get an impression of what something is, so I describe it the way it's perceived to me.
> 
> You need to dissociate from the judgement functions. The auxiliary works stand-alone. You don't need Te to be _linked_ with Ni in this way. This is why I like socionics in the sense that socionics thinks that all the functions deal with different modes and types of information, so you don't need a perceiving function in order to observe the world. Feeling types can for example observe the nature of values and feeling tones, but the important part is that feeling types do that through categorization; that's why feeling is a judgement function.
> 
> ...


So are you ever wrong, and if so, how do you know, and what do you do with that information?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Verity3 said:


> So are you ever wrong, and if so, how do you know, and what do you do with that information?


Being wrong or right is a fact of life. You can't always be right all the time. I don't do anything particular with that information because there is nothing to do with it. You accept that you were wrong and move on and later adjust or alter your views, simply.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Verity3 said:


> So what is the source of the feeling-intuitions you're describing? Are you talking about generic data equivalents, or something else?
> 
> And could this mean that "feels overloads" are rooted not in Fi, but in a lack of properly developed Fi?


He's referring to this:



> We can distinguish active and passive apperception by feeling. *Passive feeling allows itself to be attracted or excited by a particular content, which then forces the feelings of the subject to participate*. Active feeling is a transfer of value from the subject; it is an intentional valuation of the content in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with the intellect. Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of the will (q.v.), as for instance loving as opposed to being in love. The latter would be undirected, passive feeling, as these expressions themselves show: the one is an activity, the other a passive state. *Undirected feeling is feeling-intuition.* Strictly speaking, therefore, only active, directed feeling should be termed rational, *whereas passive feeling is irrational* (q.v.) in so far as it confers values without the participation or even against the intentions of the subject. When the subject’s attitude as a whole is oriented by the feeling function, we speak of a feeling type.





> In this sense thinking is a directed function, and so is feeling (qq.v.). When these functions are concerned not with a rational choice of objects, or with the qualities and interrelations of objects, but with the perception of accidentals which the actual object never lacks, they at once lose the attribute of directedness and, with it, something of their rational character, because they then accept the accidental. They begin to be irrational. The kind of thinking or feeling that is directed to the perception of accidentals, and is therefore irrational, is either intuitive or sensational. Both intuition and sensation (qq.v.) are functions that find fulfilment in the absolute perception of the flux of events. Hence, by their very nature, they will react to every possible occurrence and be attuned to the absolutely contingent, and must therefore lack all rational direction. For this reason I call them irrational functions, as opposed to thinking and feeling, which find fulfilment only when they are in complete harmony with the laws of reason.


For contrast:



> 44. Rational: The rational is the reasonable, that which accords with reason. I conceive reason as an attitude whose principle is to shape thought, feeling, and action in accordance with objective values.





> Most objective values -- and reason itself among them -- are firmly established complexes handed down to us through the ages, to the organization of which countless generations have laboured with the same necessity with which the nature of the living organism, in general, reacts to the average and constantly recurring conditions of the environment, confronting them with corresponding function-complexes -- as, for instance, the eye, which so perfectly corresponds with the nature of light.





> Human reason, therefore, is merely the expression of human adaptability to the average occurrence which has gradually become deposited in solidly organized complexes, constituting our objective values. Thus the laws of reason are those laws which rule and designate the average' correct' or adapted attitude. Everything is rational which harmonizes with these laws, and everything irrational (q.v.) which contravenes them.
> 
> Thinking and feeling are rational functions in so far as they are decisively influenced by the motive of reflection. They attain their fullest significance when in fullest possible accord with the laws of reason. The irrational functions, on the contrary, are such as aim at pure perception, e.g. intuition and sensation; because, as far as possible, they are forced to dispense with the rational (which pre-supposes the exclusion of everything that is outside reason) in order to be able to reach the most complete perception of the whole course of events.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> What I am describing is categorically distinct from Ne and Fi. The functions are different kinds of acts of will. What I am describing is a passive process rather than active.



Jung calls this (undirected or passive) apperception of value, which is comparable with (undirected or passive) intellectual apperception or intuitive thinking. For instance 'occurence'(e.g. of an absence). 

Even though it is passive, I still think it makes a difference which functions are used (for instance, things that occur to my friend go over my head and vice versa, in a way that can be related to functions). Even an educated guess or intuitive _judgement_ (of certainty) are in my view, passive and undirected. You can also think about heuristics and all kinds of cognitive bias, (like confirmation bias) which is generally considered irrational. 

Daniel Kahneman did a lot of research on the psychology of judgement and decision making, heuristics and bias 



Kahneman Thinking said:


> In the book's first section, Kahneman describes two different ways the brain forms thoughts:
> 
> System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious
> System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious
> ...



Also interesting in this, Processing Fluency



Processing Fluency said:


> Processing fluency is the ease with which information is processed. Perceptual fluency is the ease of processing stimuli based on manipulations to perceptual quality. (...) This is called the "illusion-of-truth- effect. In one study, people were more likely to judge easy-to-read statements as true. This means that perceived beauty and judged truth have a common underlying experience, namely processing fluency. Indeed, experiments showed that beauty is used as an indication for the correctness of mathematical solutions. This supports the idea that beauty is intuitively seen as truth.Processing fluency may be one of the foundations of intuition and the "Aha!" experience".
> Processing fluency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note with regard to Psychological Types



Heuristic Device said:


> "Heuristic device" is used when an entity X exists to enable understanding of, or knowledge concerning, some other entity Y. A good example is a model that, as it is never identical with what it models, is a heuristic device to enable understanding of what it models.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

This blog entry equates "intuition" to implicit memory. The neurological basis of intuition – Neurophilosophy


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

I was discussing this with someone the other day, and actually...

I think they both use metaphors, symbolism, and similes. I mean, _everyone _uses this language. But, there's a subtle difference in how each is interpreted by their respective functions.

Ne tends to embrace universal, objective language that everyone can normally understand. It always connects to the audience. Water represents sorrow, or cleansing, or tranquility, or whatever it happens to represent based on the context, as an example.

For Ni-- It embraces subjective, personalized language that only it can understand and explain. It nearly always connects back to the user. A great example is that Jungian example of the woman saying that she had a black snake in her stomach. It was a very personal symbol/metaphor that she used to express herself, and her perspective. 

An Ne-user could guess that the snake could represent a lot of different things, but never _quite_ hit on that _personal_ Ni-definition.
@Entropic: Correct me if wrong. You seem to be better at explaining Ni.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> I was discussing this with someone the other day, and actually...
> 
> I think they both use metaphors, symbolism, and similes. I mean, _everyone _uses this language. But, there's a subtle difference in how each is interpreted by their respective functions.


About that. I have an ENTP teacher and notice that he uses very few detail information bits in his lecture. It seems only natural that when you got few information pieces you are more free to make longer connections between those few pieces. If you are stuck with alot of detail then its not logical to make long connections but small ones should be prioritized between the information. After all we have limited time.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> About that. I have an ENTP teacher and notice that he uses very few detail information bits in his lecture. It seems only natural that when you got few information pieces you are more free to make longer connections between those few pieces. If you are stuck with alot of detail then its not logical to make long connections but small ones should be prioritized between the information. After all we have limited time.


Well, I don't know your ENTP teacher, and I don't particularly relate to what you've written about him, but as someone who enjoys teaching, myself...

I subscribe to being succinct in order to be understood. Pictures are fun too-- Shiny things! Y'know... Things the kids like these days. roud:

And, anyway, I'm not sure how you're connecting this to the language that everyone uses (ie: Similes, metaphors, and symbolism).


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> I was discussing this with someone the other day, and actually...
> 
> I think they both use metaphors, symbolism, and similes. I mean, _everyone _uses this language. But, there's a subtle difference in how each is interpreted by their respective functions.
> 
> ...


It may have been personal to her, but it was for him exemplary for 'collective unconscious', referring to Kundalini snake.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

mimesis said:


> It may have been personal to her, but it was for him exemplary for 'collective unconscious', referring to Kundalini snake.


The problem here is that, yes, _of course _the Ni symbols, metaphors, and similes can be interpreted as being universal (Or, 'collective unconscious'), as in the case of the Kundalini snake.

However-- _Because _it was a personal symbol for _her, _and she expressed it as such, with her own interpretation: It points towards Ni. The fact that it is 'collective unconscious' is secondary. Pretty much _every _symbol, metaphor, and/or simile is, in fact, 'collective unconscious'. 

Examples: The elderly man as an archetype. Pretty much any major arcana tarot card.

As I said-- It's about_ how_ these symbols are interpreted/expressed through the lens of cognitive functions. For Ne, they normally want to be understood as quickly as possible. Ni doesn't necessarily want to be, and their symbols and archetypes are usually more hidden, and yes, 'unconscious' in terms of meaning.

Thus, an Ni symbol may be interpreted by an Ne-user, and they may come close to hitting the mark of that meaning by recycling through their database of known meanings for those symbols... But, they will _probably not _hit on it, because the Ni symbol will be obstructed by the subjective attachment to it, and the subjective meaning/understanding.

Just my understanding, though. I could be way wrong. :kitteh:


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, I don't know your ENTP teacher, and I don't particularly relate to what you've written about him, but as someone who enjoys teaching, myself...
> 
> I subscribe to being succinct in order to be understood. Pictures are fun too-- Shiny things! Y'know... Things the kids like these days. roud:
> 
> And, anyway, I'm not sure how you're connecting this to the language that everyone uses (ie: Similes, metaphors, and symbolism).


Haha okej cool.  Ye hes lectures is not for children. But its like this thing that he clump information. It give a very good wide prespective of the lecture. We got a TeNi teacher who only say what is supposed to be said and nothing more, unless its a expansion or a related story. He is very clear. An Si teacher give you all bits of information, one by one, don't repeat himself and almost painting an picture with those pieces of information. 

I just thought the clumping would be relevant.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> Haha okej cool.  Ye hes lectures is not for children. But its like this thing that he clump information. It give a very good wide prespective of the lecture. We got a TeNi teacher who only say what is supposed to be said and nothing more, unless its a expansion or a related story. He is very clear. An Si teacher give you all bits of information, one by one, don't repeat himself and almost painting an picture with those pieces of information.
> 
> I just thought the clumping would be relevant.


Ah, okay. I see what you mean, now. roud:

And I'd agree-- I think it depends on the information. It's very easy to get confused with a lot of 'busy' information being thrown out at people.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> The problem here is that, yes, _of course _the Ni symbols, metaphors, and similes can be interpreted as being universal (Or, 'collective unconscious'), as in the case of the Kundalini snake.
> 
> However-- _Because _it was a personal symbol for _her, _and she expressed it as such, with her own interpretation: It points towards Ni. The fact that it is 'collective unconscious' is secondary. Pretty much _every _symbol, metaphor, and/or simile is, in fact, 'collective unconscious'.
> 
> ...


Sure we can all acces 'it' (collective unconscious), using introverted functions one way or the other. For instance, Jung when he compares Ti with Fi. 



Jung said:


> Primordial images are, of course, just as much idea as feeling. Thus, basic ideas such as God, freedom, immortality are just as much feeling-values as they are significant as ideas. Everything, therefore, that has been said of the introverted thinking refers equally to introverted feeling, only here everything is felt while there it was thought.


What seems a significant difference though, at least as put forward by Dario Nardi, is perception of multiple interpretations/analogies (or 'occurences') to a symbol or word or metaphor (or interpretation in a different concrete context, like with double entendre). 



Nardi said:


> By way of anecdote, I recall an INFJ at a type conference engaging in my a chat about analogies and how INFJs do these well. An ENFP and an INTP came over to us and one of them cracked a joke. The joke was an abstract analogy that sounded like jibber-jabber to someone who doesn't do Ne. But I've spent years with ENFPs and I understood the joke immediately and added to it, though how I managed to add to it effectively, well, that was pure random serendipity. The INFJ didn't get the joke at all. In fact, she seemed unaware a joke had occurred. Nor could she add to it. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if, in her creative writing time, that INFJ effectively uses metaphor and such all over the place. But she can't do it in real time or apply it on dozens of questions or problems at once.
> http://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/18gudp/ama_with_typologist_dario_nardi/


Or, to use the example of the woman Jung spoke of, it didn't 'occur' to her she was staying in a brothel. She interpreted it as 'friends visiting', based on concrete sensory input of behavior that was 'euphemistic' to say the least.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Sure we can all acces 'it' (collective unconscious), using introverted functions one way or the other. For instance, Jung when he compares Ti with Fi.
> 
> 
> 
> What seems a significant difference though, at least as put forward by Dario Nardi, is perception of multiple interpretations/analogies (or 'occurences') to a symbol or word or metaphor (or interpretation in a different concrete context, like with double entendre).


Interesting information. I'm not sure what to say about it, as I'm not sure about Nardi's work, although I do support his attempts at getting typing correlating with brain scans. roud:

I would think that the 'universal' tendency of Ne would trip-up Ni, to be honest, because they simply don't operate the same way-- That's my best guess. Ni is _not, _as a rule, 'universal'-- It's very internalized and personal, rather than interpersonal and 'real time', as Nardi suggests.

I think it would help if the interaction of the joke were outlined, because otherwise, all we're doing is taking Nardi's word for it. :kitteh:

For example: What 'abstract analogy' was made, and how was it relevant? Is he so certain that the Ni-dom was confused because of the use of the analogy? 

I think the context is important, in this instance.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Interesting information. I'm not sure what to say about it, as I'm not sure about Nardi's work, although I do support his attempts at getting typing correlating with brain scans. roud:
> 
> I would think that the 'universal' tendency of Ne would trip-up Ni, to be honest, because they simply don't operate the same way-- That's my best guess. Ni is _not, _as a rule, 'universal'-- It's very internalized and personal, rather than interpersonal and 'real time', as Nardi suggests.
> 
> ...


Yeah I agree it would be great, but he probably forgot how the joke went, heh. :tongue:

I can take it for granted because I have a similar impression myself. It has become second nature so much that I assume other people get it the way I intended it, which can sometimes cause problems when you use hyperboles or irony.

And that's only when people respond to it, (or don't respond at all, or not "add to it" as Nardi puts it, making me second guess my wording), which would allow me to correct it, wording it differently.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

stop trying to examplificate every function as it was a secret technique in a rpg game


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

The-Overweighted-America said:


> stop trying to examplificate every function as it was a secret technique in a rpg game


Lol, then stop trying to exemplificate yourself, using an analogy with an emotional connotation.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

@mimesis i knew this was going to happen


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

The-Overweighted-America said:


> @_mimesis_ i knew this was going to happen


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> I would think that the 'universal' tendency of Ne would trip-up Ni, to be honest, because they simply don't operate the same way-- That's my best guess. Ni is not, as a rule, 'universal'-- It's very internalized and personal, rather than interpersonal and 'real time', as Nardi suggests.


What made you think Ne has a 'universal' tendency? I would relate the 'universal' disposition to introversion, as opposite to particular/ real-time/ local, like abstract vs concrete, or intensity vs extensity. Of course it begs the question, how does one jump from introversion and personal to universal? 



Abstraction to Universal said:


> Abstraction typically results in the reduction of a complex idea to a simpler concept or a general domain, which allows the understanding of a variety of specific scenarios in terms of certain basic ideas. (...) Abstraction in philosophy is the process of forming a concept by identifying common features among a group of individuals, or by ignoring unique aspects of these individuals. The notion of abstraction is important to understanding some philosophical controversies surrounding empiricism and the problem of universals.
> 
> In metaphysics, a universal is a type, a property, or a relation. The term derives from the Latin word universalia and is often considered to be a mind-independent entity that transcends the vicissitudes of time and so can be applied throughout the universe. It is most often contrasted with "individual," “particular,” or sometimes “concrete” and is used to explain how individuals share similar qualities, relations, or resemblances with one another.


And strictly speaking (because I think you meant it differently), internalization usually denotes assimilation of the subjective to the objective, or for instance being engulfed by the object so much one cannot distinct personal feeling/emotion from other people's feeling /emotion (emotional contagion). 



Jung Psychological Types said:


> The extraverted type is constantly tempted to give himself away (apparently) in favour of the object, and to assimilate his subject to the object.


Conversely, what you see with introversion, is externalization, or 'universal application' of these 'mind independent entities', in their _projection_ on the object. 



Jung Psychological Types said:


> [ Introverted Thinking ]
> If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth.
> 
> [ Introverted Feeling ]
> ...


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

It's exactly how my brain operates! It just immediately transfers my situation into something else!


It's.... uhhh... well, dangit, you put me on the spot!


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

mimesis said:


> What made you think Ne has a 'universal' tendency? I would relate the 'universal' disposition to introversion, as opposite to particular/ real-time/ local, like abstract vs concrete, or intensity vs extensity. Of course it begs the question, how does one jump from introversion and personal to universal?


Well, it's just my way of explaining it, I suppose. I already explained it in my previous posts, with symbolic examples. roud:


----------

