# Predicting trends element of Ni



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

I see this in the descriptions but I am confused about what this actually means. When I think 'predicting trends' I think 'they now what everyone will be wearing next year" which is probably/obviously not what is meant, but what does it mean? Is it just the ability to complete a pattern? What kind of patterns get completed? 

Like this:



> have visions of the past and future


???

Should we be treating Ni egos like the Oracle at Delphi?

What is actually meant by this, in reality?


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

It's the ability (or the attention goes to) to see trends, yea, and to see where something is most likely to lead... It's not just something we pull out of our ass, though it may seem like it to others and us, it's an irrational function so it's taken in subconsciously. //in short 



> When I think 'predicting trends' I think 'they now what everyone will be wearing next year"


Could be, i guess. but then you'd have to have developed your Si (aesthetic)


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

karmachameleon said:


> It's the ability (or the attention goes to) to see trends, yea, and to see where something is most likely to lead... It's not just something we pull out of our ass, though it may seem like it to others and us, it's an irrational function so it's taken in subconsciously. //in short
> 
> 
> Could be, i guess. but then you'd have to have developed your Si (aesthetic)


Can you give an example of these trends you see? An example of where you saw something lead?


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Can you give an example of these trends you see? An example of where you saw something lead?


Sometimes it doesn't have to lead somewhere, but you get a feeling that you shouldn't do this, or you should do this instead. Ni is about risk also. Like an SLE is like "im gonna follow my friends and do parkour for the first time tomorrow ok cool" and the IEI is like "nope youre not". I've always hated and had a bad feeling about water slides/water parks in general (and shady theme park rides), i would never ride them as a kid. But I got pressured 2 times and both those times were NOT good times lol. Both times something went wrong and i hurt myself or i was on the verge of drowning. Also one time I was pulling an electric cord, but the metal things got stuck. So then i was like hmmm (I had 0 knowledge of how this stuff works so dont judge) I was considering pulling it out but I physically couldn't bring myself to do it for some reason, I just stood there frozen until I was like maybe this is bad. And yeah later I found out it was. =d


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Can you give an example of these trends you see? An example of where you saw something lead?


Tell us yours!


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

karmachameleon said:


> Tell us yours!


Well it sometimes seems like I have a guardian angel. Sounds like you do too. Life is a game of inches. I have had some close calls. 

But a smaller scale example. Like at parties or places when I was younger. I can tell from the atmosphere that shit is gonna go down long before it does. Without any explicit signs. Like I will leave a party and the next day my friend will say something like, "A little after you left, a brawl broke out and a bunch of people got destroyed." And I am like, "Yeah, I saw that coming. That is why I left." lol.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

It's more like foreseeing the consequences of present actions e.g. if you don't do X now, Y will happen later. As a practical example, when NH was seeing me earlier this year, she would often have a spontaneous idea that I want to do X. So I'll plan around that and I say, ok, we need to get ready in 1 hour from now and then we're cool. What would happen is that she'd get lost in some activity, forgetting about time and any sense of time and suddenly it's 40 min past that one hour is up and she's like, shit, I need to get ready, and she hurries to get ready except she really needed that 1 hour to get ready in time before we left. We thus end up over 40 min late. So it's also about the ability to gauge how much time an activity takes to perform. 

Ni is less about "I foresee X is going to happen 10 years from now" and more "X is happening now which will lead to Y". It's about seeing how processes change and develop over time. Similarly, Ni can be something like, X happened in the past, so it's not so strange Y is happening now and if Y doesn't change, Z is going to unfold from that. 

You see a couple of fighting, Ni would say, "these people will break up soon" which especially baffles the Se ego, because all they see is a couple fighting.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

But couples who fight also stay together. I doubt there would be anybody in the place who saw a couple fight and may not think they would break up. It wouldn't baffle anybody. That isn't Ni.

I like the concept of the Black Swan. The things that really shape our world, nobody can predict. I like Taleb. He actually compared Economics to astrology. They have about the same level of success in their predictions. 

"Much of what happens in history", he notes, "comes from 'Black Swan dynamics', very large, sudden, and totally unpredictable 'outliers', while much of what we usually talk about is almost pure noise. Our track record in predicting those events is dismal; yet by some mechanism called the hindsight bias we think that we understand them. We have a bad habit of finding 'laws' in history (by fitting stories to events and detecting false patterns); we are drivers looking through the rear view mirror while convinced we are looking ahead."

The *black swan theory* or *theory of black swan events* is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. The term is based on an ancient saying which presumed black swans did not exist, but the saying was rewritten after black swans were discovered in the wild.
The theory was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain:


The disproportionate role of high-profile, hard-to-predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance, and technology.
The non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities).
The psychological biases that blind people, both individually and collectively, to uncertainty and to a rare event's massive role in historical affairs.
Unlike the earlier and broader "black swan problem" in philosophy (i.e. the problem of induction), Taleb's "black swan theory" refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP]:xxi[/SUP] More technically, in the scientific monograph 'Silent Risk',[SUP][2][/SUP] Taleb mathematically defines the black swan problem as "stemming from the use of degenerate metaprobability".[SUP][2]



[/SUP]*Go ask your portfolio manager for his definition of "risk," and odds are that he will supply you with a measure that excludes the possibility of the Black Swan-hence one that has no better predictive value for assessing the total risks than astrology (we will see how they dress up the intellectual fraud with mathematics). This problem is endemic in social matters.

**The central idea of this book concerns our blindness with respect to randomness, particularly the large deviations: Why do we, scientists or nonscientists, hotshots or regular Joes, tend to see the pennies instead of the dollars? Why do we keep focusing on the minutiae, not the possible significant large events, in spite of the obvious evidence of their huge influence? And, if you follow my argument, why does reading the newspaper actually decrease your knowledge of the world?*
*
It is easy to see that life is the cumulative effect of a handful of significant shocks. It is not so hard to identify the role of Black Swans, from your armchair (or bar stool). Go through the following exercise. Look into your own existence. Count the significant events, the technological changes, and the inventions that have taken place in our environment since you were born and compare them to what was expected before their advent. How many of them came on a schedule? Look into your own personal life, to your choice of profession, say, or meeting your mate, your exile from your country of origin, the betrayals you faced, your sudden enrichment or impoverishment. How often did these things occur according to plan?*
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/books/chapters/0422-1st-tale.html?_r=0


It reminds me of what Richard Feynman used to do. He would come into class and say, "You never believe what I saw on the way here. In the parking lot there was a car with the license plate "D12 4gn. What are the odds?" He was showing how for every significant pattern you see there is a million insignificant ones you ignore. Nobody cares about that pattern but the odds of it are low. He said the same thing about this prediction stuff. How many times have you thought something bad was gonna happen, but it didn't? Add those to the score.

And he would put it to the test. Richard Dawkins ripped him off so bad. Feynman used to have a bowling ball almost swing into this face but said that he has faith in science, and I am willing to be smashed in the face with a bowling ball if I am wrong. That is how sure I am about the calculations of science. If he teaches this stuff, he believes in it.






And nobody has ever made better predictions than Richard Feynman. Literally. Quantum electrodynamics is the most precise theory man ever came up with. It makes the best predictions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

/facepalm

Yes, a couple can also choose to stay together but that was beyond the point of the example being made. An Ni type could equally say in that situation, "they will marry each other soon". 

It is not about A and B, but how A *>* B. That's the entire point of Ni, to see how something develops or unfolds over time. Whether B is an accurate prediction or not is actually irrelevant; Ni egos can and are wrong in their predictions all the time. What they are not wrong about, however, is how they intrinsically understand how things change over time, how the flow of time transforms A *into* B. It's about change, metamorphosis. Dario Nardi/Linda Berens did get that part of Ni right:



> Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data; realizing “what will be”; conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations; getting an image of profound meaning or far-reaching symbols. *Transforming with a metaperspective.


For those that think the MBTI and socionics are so different, btw, it's interesting how an MBTI theorist such as Linda Berens that has no knowledge whatsoever of socionics wrote this definition of Ni based on Jung's works. Took me forever to understand it too, because it's written in such needlessly abstract language.

Time lapse videos are great examples of showcasing Ni in the visual arts, I think:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> /facepalm
> 
> Yes, a couple can also choose to stay together but that was beyond the point of the example being made. An Ni type could equally say in that situation, "they will marry each other soon".
> 
> ...


I wonder how you think Se users can even walk. 

If some girl grabs my dick somewhere, can only a Ni user see we may have sex later? 


My 5 year old nephew understands that fighting is sign of a bad relationship. To think a Se type would be baffled by the idea of a fighting couple breaking up is treating them like a proverbial goldfish. Everybody could recognize that unfolding or potential.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Time lapse videos are great examples of showcasing Ni in the visual arts, I think:


I find this interesting as I've seen it argued that the process of growth and decay suggests Si because of the physical changes over time. I recently reblogged this image set because it depicted the loss of vitality over time:




























Would you say it's the same thing, or no?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I wonder how you think Se users can even walk.
> 
> If some girl grabs my dick somewhere, can only a Ni user see we may have sex later?
> 
> ...


I like how you address everything else BUT the point. What if said girl happened to be a physician and she's inspecting you because you're at gyn rofl? Can be plenty of reasons why someone chooses to grab your dick and not all of them are based on sexual desire. It entirely depends on their intent. If the context is that you are sitting on a sofa, she's sitting next to you on the sofa, there are no other people nearby and she's gazing deeply into your eyes while grabbing your dick; bingo, she's likely to want to have sex with you. Doesn't mean that she will though, kinda like this girl in this video:






The way an Ni ego determines the likely outcome of events is based on a) what has been observed in the past viz. what is being observed in the present and b) how said present is currently contextualized. Ni bases have 3D Ne in the ignoring function; Ne constantly helps the Ni base to unconsciously scan the potentials in the environment in order to determine what the most accurate flow of events will be like. Because it's 3D they only consider the current situation because they don't need more; their main focus is on the flow of events, not the potentials and where those lead.

@lets mosey that entirely depends on the point of these images but in principle yes, it would be the same. Si can definitely deal with how the physical changes, but I think it tends to be more based on the physical integrity of the object and how it's experienced like. This is why I keep reiterating that Si can be very body-horror based. 

Think of the Saw series for example: Bad guy got cancer, thinks he's doing people a favor by teaching them to appreciate their healthy bodies by putting them in physically uncomfortable situations that force them to face the possibility of turning them into some kind of cripple (assuming that they survive). 

Similarly, we can see how Si can focus on the transformation of the body into something grotesque, because it suggests the breaking down of physical barriers and thus also the physical integrity of the body. None of these changes to the body actually refer to time as the main transformative aspect though. It's the physical changing itself by itself and how we experience those changes within ourselves. This video was typed as examplary of Ne by some Russian socionics(?):






Regardless if it's a primary focus on Ne or Si, it emphasizes both aspects of the axis i.e. the potential ways the body can break down/be destroyed.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> I like how you ignore everything else BUT the point. What if said girl happened to be a physician and she's inspecting you because you're at gyn rofl? Can be plenty of reasons why someone chooses to grab your dick and not all of them are based on sexual desire. It entirely depends on their intent. If the context is that you are sitting on a sofa, she's sitting next to you on the sofa, there are no other people nearby and she's gazing deeply into your eyes while grabbing your dick; bingo, she's likely to want to have sex with you. Doesn't mean that she will though, kinda like this girl in this video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is looking at the future of events. They are contextual. I could nitpick your original scenario about couples. The point is, EVERYBODY can see that potential. Watch a reality show. Anything. People can figure out what things mean and where they go. "Oh shit, that will cause drama! They are done!" Not only Ni users are looking at that shit. lol. My God. 

You still have not given me a real example beyond basic cognitive skills and reasoning.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

lets mosey said:


> I find this interesting as I've seen it argued that the process of growth and decay suggests Si because of the physical changes over time. I recently reblogged this image set because it depicted the loss of vitality over time:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup. Ni doesn't manifest it so literally. So without symbolism. Si abstracts literal sensory elements. Like that. The universals.

How is showing a flower growing Ni? lol.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Entropic said:


> @*lets mosey* that entirely depends on the point of these images but in principle yes, it would be the same. Si can definitely deal with how the physical changes, but I think it tends to be more based on the physical integrity of the object and how it's experienced like. This is why I keep reiterating that Si can be very body-horror based.
> 
> Think of the Saw series for example: Bad guy got cancer, thinks he's doing people a favor by teaching them to appreciate their healthy bodies by putting them in physically uncomfortable situations that force them to face the possibility of turning them into some kind of cripple (assuming that they survive).
> 
> ...


Thanks for the response. Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, if someone were to interpret the images as the progression of life to death, vitality to non-vitality, weakening of the mind or endurance or motivation or whatever else over a period of time, essentially how time acts on and shapes these things (not necessarily in a literal way), it would be indicative of Ni? Whereas Si has more to do with the actual experience of the changes or degradation, so for example looking at the images of the leaves and taking note of their changes in color and the physical process of their withering? Also, how would one distinguish Si body horror from, let's say, an Se motivation to persevere at the expense of bodily integrity? Or do they both amount to Si in the end?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

That flower growing and decaying is such a bad example of Ni tho. Ni would abstract it to other symbols. Like a human decaying. I can see that. With the limbs. To take it as it is and not use an archetype is the antithesis of Ni.

Animation may as well be Ni then.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Ni 'foreseeing' events is just noting particular patterns and pushing them out into the future, isn't it?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

owlet said:


> Ni 'foreseeing' events is just noting particular patterns and pushing them out into the future, isn't it?



I love squidbillies. These guys go to the future and think they can bet on past games. lol. He is saying how they were there so they know how it happened. His son is like, "Daddy, I don't think you can bet on things that already happened."

They totally fucked up time travel logic.


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> That flower growing and decaying is such a bad example of Ni tho. Ni would abstract it to other symbols. Like a human decaying. I can see that. With the limbs. To take it as it is and not use an archetype is the antithesis of Ni.


Sorry to be blunt, but this seems like such nonsense to me. The idea that a symbol can somehow be inherently "too literal" for Ni is such ridiculous thinking, especially when considering the strongly subjective & associative nature of Ni.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

VagrantFarce said:


> Sorry to be blunt, but this seems like such nonsense to me. The idea that a symbol can somehow be inherently "too literal" for Ni is such ridiculous thinking, especially when considering the strongly subjective & associative nature of Ni.


Yes, and there is nothing subjective about it. It is textbook. May as well shuffle a deck of cards and call it Ni. May as well show a car driving somewhere. Ni. lol

Here's some more Ni for ya. Look at that. Back and forth. Like that plant. State changes aren't Ni.


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yes, and there is nothing subjective about it. It is textbook. May as well shuffle a deck of cards and call it Ni. May as well show a car driving somewhere. Ni. lol
> 
> Here's some more Ni for ya. Look at that. Back and forth. Like that plant. State changes aren't Ni.


"Textbook"? So, because it's too obvious a symbol _to you_, it's indicative of nothing? Again, this seems remarkably arbitrary, and I think it demonstrates a very poor understanding of what Ni actually is. One can take anything to be a symbol of anything else. Just because _you_ can't, or don't want to, means absolutely nothing.

And yes, it is subjective. Introverted Intuition - intuition that is accessible to the subject, and inaccessible to the object. Unique to the individual.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I think his refusal to admit or see the presence of Ni being presented to him vs the imagery he himself provides says more about his own cognition than standing as a critique against my reasoning but each to their own. I cba to argue with someone that can only see things in static As or Bs but doesn't understand how A transforms into B because he's too stubborn to admit that perhaps there's a point to what's being said. 

Ties nicely into my commentary previously about Ne though. Ne works with analogies too and seeks to link imagery together.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

I'd say it depends on whatever the person can extract from the image, not the image itself, although how a person uses imagery also says something about their depth or understanding. Certainly it's possible to attach meaning to even the simplest and most minimal of things.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

VagrantFarce said:


> "Textbook"? So, because it's too obvious a symbol _to you_, it's indicative of nothing? Again, this seems remarkably arbitrary, and I think it demonstrates a very poor understanding of what Ni actually is. One can take anything to be a symbol of anything else. Just because _you_ can't, or don't want to, means absolutely nothing.
> 
> And yes, it is subjective. Introverted Intuition - intuition that is accessible to the subject, and inaccessible to the object. Unique to the individual.


Because it is an actual literal learned image that is literally expresses itself. It is the most objective, concrete representation of the idea that could be used. lol. How is it subjective or inaccessible? It is a hardened image that is learned.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> I think his refusal to admit or see the presence of Ni being presented to him vs the imagery he himself provides says more about his own cognition than standing as a critique against my reasoning but each to their own. I cba to argue with someone that can only see things in static As or Bs but doesn't understand how A transforms into B because he's too stubborn to admit that perhaps there's a point to what's being said.
> 
> Ties nicely into my commentary previously about Ne though. Ne works with analogies too and seeks to link imagery together.


You haven't explained how the literal motion of a flow from life to death and back is Ni. Or given me a single good example of it.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I see this in the descriptions but I am confused about what this actually means. When I think 'predicting trends' I think 'they now what everyone will be wearing next year" which is probably/obviously not what is meant, but what does it mean? Is it just the ability to complete a pattern? What kind of patterns get completed?
> 
> Like this:
> 
> ...


The Oracle of Delphi is actually very EII in nature, IMO. He's an Ne glorification of how Ne/Si types view Ni when in reverence.

How would I explain Ni... Well for starters, it's an internally chaotic function. It's something I access when I'm planning something where I look at what is true today then try to predict if something will become more popular or less popular. For example, Product A has some modest success in sales. Then someone tasks me with taking an objective look at Product A and assess its market potential. Product A has reasonably good quality, is mass producible, currently lacks marketing of its existence, has a very limited market penetration rate. This would thus lead me to conclude that increasing sales of product A should be the goal as many factors that have so far limited its success can be addressed and its sales popularity can be increased as it's a universally sellable item.

So that would be an example of Te-Ni which I'm sure would be very different for an Ni-Te type. For me, Ni is about producing tangible and measurable outcomes.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But couples who fight also stay together. I doubt there would be anybody in the place who saw a couple fight and may not think they would break up. It wouldn't baffle anybody. That isn't Ni.
> 
> I like the concept of the Black Swan. The things that really shape our world, nobody can predict. I like Taleb. He actually compared Economics to astrology. They have about the same level of success in their predictions.
> 
> "Much of what happens in history", he notes, "comes from 'Black Swan dynamics', very large, sudden, and totally unpredictable 'outliers', while much of what we usually talk about is almost pure noise. Our track record in predicting those events is dismal; yet by some mechanism called the hindsight bias we think that we understand them. We have a bad habit of finding 'laws' in history (by fitting stories to events and detecting false patterns); we are drivers looking through the rear view mirror while convinced we are looking ahead."




Um, that's about as Ni-PoLR a theory as I've ever read. No Ni-ego would believe that to be true because such a theory states that we are helpless against the currents leading us into the future. If you endorse such a theory, I would suggest you consider ESE or LSE as a type instead.


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Because it is an actual literal learned image. How is it subjective or inaccessible? It is a hardened image that is learned.


Many symbols are - is it necessary for the physical image to be distorted for you to take it seriously? What precludes it from being imbued with meaning or even considered archetypal? Because _you_ see nothing in it?

Ni is inaccessible and subjective because it is a process you cannot share directly with others, except perhaps indirectly. It is a process unique to the individual.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Um, that's about as Ni-PoLR a theory as I've ever read. No Ni-ego would believe that to be true because such a theory states that we are helpless against the currents leading us into the future. If you endorse such a theory, I would suggest you consider ESE or LSE as a type instead.


So because a person has the foresight to see that things cannot be predicted they are Ni polr? lol.

This guy actually predicts things. Richard Feynman too. He Ni polr as well? Einstein? Did you ever think they may actually see further than you? That their uncertainty is grounded in seeing things more clearly and deeply than you?

I will be happy to match their predictions against yours.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> So because a person has the foresight to see that things cannot be predicted they are Ni polr? lol.


Semantics but that's not having the foresight to say the future is unpredictable. That's an admission that there is an inability to know the unknown that is the future. To an Ni-PoLR, the immediate future sucks, especially when the world seems to be changing and in one's mind the only to survive it is to protect oneself from the unknown and to restrict any and everything that could be an "outlier".



> This guy actually predicts things. Richard Feynman too. He Ni polr as well? Einstein? Did you ever think they may actually see further than you? That their uncertainty is grounded in seeing things more clearly and deeply than you?


Richard Feynman is an LIE, Albert Einstein is an ILE. Very different in how they predicted things. Feynman is famously known to having taking out flood insurance the same year his house flooded = Ni prediction. Einstein predicted the future because test methods at the time could not prove his theories on gravity or the dual nature of light. Today scientists are proving his theories to be right = Ne futurism.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But couples who fight also stay together. I doubt there would be anybody in the place who saw a couple fight and may not think they would break up. It wouldn't baffle anybody. That isn't Ni.
> 
> I like the concept of the Black Swan. The things that really shape our world, nobody can predict. I like Taleb. He actually compared Economics to astrology. They have about the same level of success in their predictions.
> 
> ...


Ni vs Ne (w/ Ti)






And a song:






I don't care what the future holds
Cause I'm right here, and I'm today
With your fingers you can touch me

Ni --> Se


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Semantics but that's not having the foresight to say the future is unpredictable. That's an admission that there is an inability to know the unknown that is the future. To an Ni-PoLR, the immediate future sucks, especially when the world seems to be changing and in one's mind the only to survive it is to protect oneself from the unknown and to restrict any and everything that could be an "outlier".
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Feynman is an LIE, Albert Einstein is an ILE. Very different in how they predicted things. Feynman is famously known to having taking out flood insurance the same year his house flooded = Ni prediction. Einstein predicted the future because test methods at the time could not prove his theories on gravity or the dual nature of light. Today scientists are proving his theories to be right = Ne futurism.


The idea that Feynman took out insurance before a flood being Ni is really all I have to say. lol. Such a small understanding of what Ni is. Feynman would mock that example btw. Many people get insurance. You cherry pick the ones who needed it and happened to have it happen. lol. My God. I hit a deer and what do you know, I had insurance. lol. Shows such a low understanding of probability and why people get insurance. It isn't magic. Stop. There were logical reasons for Feynman to do that. It wasn't some magical power.


*I remembered the time I was in my fraternity house at MIT when the idea came into my head completely out of the blue that my grandmother was dead. Right after that there was a telephone call, just like that. It was for Pete Bernays—my grandmother wasn’t dead. So I remembered that, in case somebody told me a story that ended the other way. I figured that such things can sometimes happen by luck—after all, my grandmother was very old—although people might think they happened by some sort of supernatural phenomenon.
*

so there ya go. Those predictions being wrong. Premonitions being wrong. *
*


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The idea that Feynman took out insurance before a flood being Ni is really all I have to say. lol. Such a small understanding of what Ni is. Feynman would mock that example btw. Many people get insurance. You cherry pick the ones who needed it and happened to have it happen. lol. My God. I hit a deer and what do you know, I had insurance. lol. Shows such a low understanding of probability. Stop.


Quantum Mechanics is a very NT field and one of the very highly theoretical fields that attract LIE. At any rate, what I said about Feynman's purchase of disaster insurance at just the right time is at odds with the Black Swan Theory that you posited. Please don't try to pretend to understand Ni, it only pollutes the knowledgebase for all. No offense.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Quantum Mechanics is a very NT field and one of the very highly theoretical fields that attract LIE. At any rate, what I said about Feynman's purchase of disaster insurance at just the right time is at odds with the Black Swan Theory that you posited. Please don't try to pretend to understand Ni, it only pollutes the knowledgebase for all. No offense.


Yes, of course it is an NT field, because you said so....

And can you explain why when the phone rang Feynman thought his grandmother was dead, but she wasn't? Must be lack of Ni. lol. Can't you see the message in that story? It refutes your argument. He is mocking people like you and you don't even know it.

Carl Sagan also despised hunches. Another Ni polr guy.

They mock superstitious people like you. Nobody would take a cannonball to the face over Socionics. lol. Feynman would laugh at this field. Call it cargo cult psychology or whatever the term he used. He has a particular distaste for this field. Must be more of that Ni polr. 

"The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses." - Francis Bacon


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yes, of course it is an NT field, because you said so....
> 
> And can you explain why when the phone rang Feynman thought his grandmother was dead, but she wasn't? Must be lack of Ni. lol. Can't you see the message in that story? It refutes your argument. He is mocking people like you and you don't even know it.
> 
> Carl Sagan also despised hunches. Another Ni polr guy.


I speak from experience as it to being NT, having taken a course in it in college.

Ni isn't always right. If it were we'd all be billionaires off of the stock markets around the world and in the commodities trade. Ni types can be suddenly surprised or found to be wrong many times, but that is due to incomplete information, bad information or simply ignorance. I've heard of that story of Feynman and his grandmother, I believe she was in the hospital and very ill at the time and was likely expecting a call from the hospital on her health then assumed it was a call about her death. Just goes to show that even a man who makes predictions as a popular hobby can still jump to conclusions.

I'm pretty sure Carl Sagan is an ILI. If he hates hunches then it's because he's likely been around people who have hunches that are completely unfounded to which they run completely run with. We all know someone who's had a hunch then went crazy with them. I've known some EIE and LIE who were particularly bad with their Si-PoLR take an ordinary cold or flu then believing them to be on their deathbed when it was just a simple cold/flu.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> I speak from experience as it to being NT, having taken a course in it in college.
> 
> Ni isn't always right. If it were we'd all be billionaires off of the stock markets around the world and in the commodities trade. Ni types can be suddenly surprised or found to be wrong many times, but that is due to incomplete information, bad information or simply ignorance. I've heard of that story of Feynman and his grandmother, I believe she was in the hospital and very ill at the time and was likely expecting a call from the hospital on her health then assumed it was a call about her death. Just goes to show that even a man who makes predictions as a popular hobby can still jump to conclusions.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Carl Sagan is an ILI. If he hates hunches then it's because he's likely been around people who have hunches that are completely unfounded to which they run completely run with. We all know someone who's had a hunch then went crazy with them. I've known some EIE and LIE who were particularly bad with their Si-PoLR take an ordinary cold or flu then believing them to be on their deathbed when it was just a simple cold/flu.


Your personal experience means nothing to me. You can stop right there. I don't care to hear your life story and personal interpretation of events. They are unreliable and backed by nothing. 

Feynman and Sagan would say the same.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Your personal experience means nothing to me. You can stop right there. I don't care to hear your life story and personal interpretation of events. They are unreliable and backed by nothing.
> 
> Feynman and Sagan would say the same.


No need to get so emotional. I wrote one line about my personal experience, plus that's an annoyingly negative attitude to take on any subject. So I suppose you know better than anyone else on Quantum Mechanics just because you know a few facts about Feynman and know of Carl Sagan's existence. That's actually kind of funny that you would project your understanding so far based on so little. I would suggest you take a course on it at your local research university and take note of what type of people tend to fill the class. :laughing:

At any rate, your EIE typing is wrong, you are a clear LSE. I'd say Te-subtype due to your disposition.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> No need to get so emotional. I wrote one line about my personal experience, plus that's an annoyingly negative attitude to take on any subject. So I suppose you know better than anyone else on Quantum Mechanics just because you know a few facts about Feynman and know of Carl Sagan's existence. That's actually kind of funny that you would project your understanding so far based on so little. I would suggest you take a course on it at your local research university and take note of what type of people tend to fill the class. :laughing:
> 
> At any rate, your EIE typing is wrong, you are a clear LSE. I'd say Te-subtype due to your disposition.


It isn't about Quantum Mechanics, it is about the simple fact that both Sagan and Feynman discounted eyewitness accounts (personal experience) and specifically did not believe in fields like Socionics. If you want to somehow twist that into them being like you, try it.

They would say that everything you are saying is bunk right now. Do you disagree? Who are they more like? You or Taleb? lol.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It isn't about Quantum Mechanics, it is about the simple fact that both Sagan and Feynman discounted eyewitness accounts (personal experience) and specifically did not believe in fields like Socionics. If you want to somehow twist that into them being like you, try it.
> 
> They would say that everything you are saying is bunk right now. Do you disagree? Who are they more like? You or Taleb? lol.


Not taking into account eyewitness accounts had more to do with people saying they saw a ghost or some other paranormal activity. Any respectable scientist would have the same skepticism. That doesn't mean all personal experience about every topic should be disregarded. Making blanket statements based on limited information is a very bad quality to have, IMO. You should work on that or it would be best to not speak on such matters at all. Something to consider.

lmao, why would either say everything I wrote is bunk when everything I've written so far can be factually verified. Me, the Taleb fellow you mentioned seems like another LSE. He has a long list of accomplishments.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Not taking into account eyewitness accounts had more to do with people saying they saw a ghost or some other paranormal activity. Any respectable scientist would have the same skepticism. That doesn't mean all personal experience about every topic should be disregarded. Making blanket statements based on limited information is a very bad quality to have, IMO. You should work on that or it would be best to not speak on such matters at all. Something to consider.
> 
> lmao, why would either say everything I wrote is bunk when everything I've written so far can be factually verified. Me, the Taleb fellow you mentioned seems like another LSE. He has a long list of accomplishments.


Or some other cargo cult science, like say, personality typing. 

Nothing you said can be factually verified. That types exist for starters. That these people are that type, you are that type, or I am that type. These are not "facts". That NTs are the most represented in physics or anything is not a fact or anything close to it. lol.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Or some other cargo cult science, like say, personality typing.
> 
> Nothing you said can be factually verified. That types exist for starters. That these people are that type, you are that type, or I am that type. These are not "facts". That NTs are the most represented in physics or anything is not a fact or anything close to it. lol.


Or just your inability to accept something as being legitimate. Something you should get used to: Just because you don't accept something or refuse to accept something just means you maintain willful ignorance. That does not mean what you say is true and that especially does not mean you hold any authority on such matters. It would be quite the opposite actually.

You can go to the Wikipedia and look up Feynman's grandmother or how he bought disaster insurance the same year his home was destroyed due to natural disaster. Factually verifiable. Now, you were clearly referring to personality types then you'd be woefully wrong there too. Just within Western science there's the Big 5, the NEO-PI, DISC personality measure, even more rudimentary forms like the 4 humors is accepted as proto-personality typing in Western science. Just because you don't like the theory doesn't mean much, especially when you've shown you don't know much about personality types other than highlighting your own biases.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

There is a concept I am fond of; not much of a concept actually, but this:

edit: oops I remembered I wrote about it but didn't get the paragraph that actually explained it; here



















ignore clonky phrasing

Is it a Ni or Ne attitude?

Not sure how to explain

Like










Wherein circles are points in time, events probably, the black spokes are potential events leading from each circle, equally likely because they are contained in the same circle, and the red lines are the ones that were chosen. Then the second-to-last circle is the present, the lines in pen are potential events leading from it, but the one in sharpie is the only one that is possible. Each circle has infinite potential [not pictured] and obviously a different set of choices would make a different pattern, there's a whole network of alternate possibilities branching off, but only one line can be outlined in red and maybe in some cases only one line _could_ be outlined in red.

Overly complicated explanation for a fairly simple concept but...is it Ne? Because of the network of alternate possibilities? Or Ni, because of the red lines?

This song seems to express a side concept to this:


* *











Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel
Like a snowball down a mountain, or a carnival balloon
Like a carousel that's turning running rings around the moon
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping past the minutes of its face
And the world is like an apple whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind!

Like a tunnel that you follow to a tunnel of its own
Down a hollow to a cavern where the sun has never shone
Like a door that keeps revolving in a half forgotten dream
Or the ripples from a pebble someone tosses in a stream
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping past the minutes of its face
And the world is like an apple whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind!

Keys that jingle in your pocket, words that jangle in your head
Why did summer go so quickly? Was it something that you said?
Lovers walking along a shore and leave their footprints in the sand
Is the sound of distant drumming just the fingers of your hand?
Pictures hanging in a hallway and the fragment of a song
Half remembered names and faces, but to whom do they belong?
When you knew that it was over you were suddenly aware
That the autumn leaves were turning to the color of her hair!
Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel
As the images unwind, like the circles that you find in 
The windmills of your mind!

Keys that jingle in your pocket, words that jangle in your head
When did summer go so quickly? Was it something that you said?
Lovers walking along a shore and leave their footprints in the sand
Is the sound of distant drumming just the fingers of your hand?
Pictures hanging in a hallway and the fragment of a song
Half remembered names and faces, but to whom do they belong?
When you knew that it was over in the autumn of good-byes
For a moment you could not recall the color of his eyes!
Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel
As the images unwind, like the circles that you find in 
The windmills of your mind!




Is this song expressing Ne? Or Ni? [the autumn leaves were turning to the color of her hair]


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

God, you guys are killing me, aw man :star:
I saw this thread coming 22 years ago. It was a hunch.


* *




Though I do think the differences in Ni-Fe with Ni-Te is interesting. How it might influence, or the filtering of things. Not that that's exactly the point, but how it influences what is relevant and what isn't to a degree.




But I kind of experience it like... deja vu, when the link point isn't obvious. A feeling like you've experienced something, and you're set back to that experience knowing how it'll turn out 'again'. Probably a bad example, so

Like with watching movies. I will look at new things and be 'fixated' on tuning into the agenda of the movie. It's really hard for me to actually just sit there and watch (and I used to think that literally everybody did this- connect. I had no idea how people didn't do this, how can you _not_ try to predict the ending? Little things the director throws in there that are relevant but will come into play later? But I talked to a friend about this and she does not do that. She will actually just WATCH, she doesn't enjoy doing that and doesn't even think to. I still feel like she's partly lying because idk how you can just sit there and just do nothing but take things as they come. I try to kill everything for everyone). It's piecing in other movie outlines, and keeping an eye out for those cues. Certain patterns that are linked to certain end points. I'm not sure my example is that great, I think non-Ni users can probably relate to it as well, but I'm not sure. 

It's the same way with other things. Cues, (largely unconscious until you try to analyze them later) linkage, predictions and then changing course if you want different outcomes. No branches, separate straight lines. 

I kind of imagine Ne vs Ni like multiple universes vs the 5th dimension.


----------



## Iddo (Sep 14, 2016)

I've always thought this was more due to Se than Ni (heavy Se required before Ni can pop out anything formulative). This is why SFPs are always sexy and popular (if they choose), ya?


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

O_o said:


> Like with watching movies. I will look at new things and be 'fixated' on tuning into the agenda of the movie. It's really hard for me to actually just sit there and watch (and I used to think that literally everybody did this- connect. I had no idea how people didn't do this, how can you _not_ try to predict the ending? Little things the director throws in there that are relevant but will come into play later? But I talked to a friend about this and she does not do that. She will actually just WATCH, she doesn't enjoy doing that and doesn't even think to. I still feel like she's partly lying because idk how you can just sit there and just do nothing but take things as they come. I try to kill everything for everyone). It's piecing in other movie outlines, and keeping an eye out for those cues. Certain patterns that are linked to certain end points. I'm not sure my example is that great, I think non-Ni users can probably relate to it as well, but I'm not sure.


Haha I hate figuring out the agenda of a movie, or the ending -I try to cultivate as much pure suspension of disbelief as possible)
Definitely not how I experience media, don't think it's a thing most people could relate to. 
Makes sense)


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> There is a concept I am fond of; not much of a concept actually, but this:
> 
> edit: oops I remembered I wrote about it but didn't get the paragraph that actually explained it; here
> 
> ...


I've never thought about Merlin within the context of Socionics but in MBTI I think he's widely considered to be INTP because he displays a clear use of Ti and Ne. The magic tricks he performed relied on chemistry principles that weren't well known in his day and age, so to the layman would seem magical. So I guess LII suits him well and those warnings sound like him being a good member of Arthur's court. Also those passages would suggest his version of seeing the future is the multiple Ne possibilities rather than the singular or very few possibilities that Ni tends to create.



> Not sure how to explain
> 
> Like
> 
> ...


Yes, that vaguely seems like Ni. A lot of ILI I know and have known tend to think like that. Come up with an idea, flesh it out using Te (Fe for IEI) then there's some destination time until the next idea, then rinse and repeat.



> This song seems to express a side concept to this:
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


I can't quite put a finger on it but I would say the song is very Fe in nature and seemingly Si... Alpha SF although I'm not quite sure. If Noel Harrison writes his own lyrics, then I'd say he's either an SEI or ESE.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

@Scoobyscoob thank you! You've been very helpful in answering my questions, really appreciate it :fall:


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I see this in the descriptions but I am confused about what this actually means. When I think 'predicting trends' I think 'they now what everyone will be wearing next year" which is probably/obviously not what is meant, but what does it mean? Is it just the ability to complete a pattern? What kind of patterns get completed?
> 
> Like this:
> 
> ...


There's a video of Jung in youtube where he talks about this. He used the example of a cormorant (bird that dives to find food) where an Ni dominant is way more successful at "guessing" where it wil surface after diving. Especially as more dives have been observed.

Ni just sees associations between known facts. These can lead to conclusions about the future, and then again new associations show up,.... When this process repeats a couple of times, Ni can predict future events. In fact, Ni dominant types do this all the time. They have a constant image in their heads of the future. Also they have very quickly a clear picture of how past events have developed into a current event. It's basically the same process.

As a result, descriptions of Ni seem magical sometimes. That's because the descriptions give the impression that Ni is always right, every time. And that's not the case.

In reality, Ni's predictions get constantly updated with new information. And that new information can change the prediction. So when you hear an Ni dominant person make a prediction, it can easily happen that the next day that prediction isn't the same anymore. This is perfectly fine for Ni dominant people. They have a view of reality that gets constantly updated. Some types can't deal with this. INTJ's for example can be very sure about something and they will present it that way, and the next day they'll be like: Oh with this new information it has changed it bit. Now it's this way.

So don't atribute too many magical properties to Ni. It's not as special it seems according to some descriptions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Peter said:


> There's a video of Jung in youtube where he talks about this. He used the example of a cormorant (bird that dives to find food) where an Ni dominant is way more successful at "guessing" where it wil surface after diving. Especially as more dives have been observed.
> 
> Ni just sees associations between known facts. These can lead to conclusions about the future, and then again new associations show up,.... When this process repeats a couple of times, Ni can predict future events. In fact, Ni dominant types do this all the time. They have a constant image in their heads of the future. Also they have very quickly a clear picture of how past events have developed into a current event. It's basically the same process.
> 
> ...


Agreed. It's an irrational function so it's more about the data than the accuracy of data.


@Scoobyscoob @VagrantFarce there's no point arguing with FAT about Ni. I know exactly what he's trying to get at with his picture but it's a very infantile version of what he's trying to reach at. Conceptually speaking, anyway. Ironically it's no better than the car example he was accusing me of potentially using even though I'd never use such an example, and that's because a moving car is about force, not time. A car that moves is a physical object moving through space and that requires force. There is, however, no time aspect involved as a car moving through space does not necessarily denote changes in terms of time. I think great examples of this include abandoned places; they keep aging, changing, being subject to entropic decay, despite being static in space. 

I've seen it before and he has difficulty grasping how change occurs without envisioning a literal object moving through space. Again, that is force, not time. Arguably, it is how force would try to understand time since we associate physical movement in space with time , but that's an aside. What time determines here is where the car will be at a certain point in time depending on its speed, but it's not making the car move forward. That's force. When thinking about it, didn't people do these kinds of equations in 5th grade or something? 

He's definitely making a fool out of himself though and I hope no one in this thread takes his ramblings about what Ni is seriously because it's so far removed from anything theory it's just pure misinformation guised under his view of a supposed fact.

@Phoenix Virtue the Merlin quote is Ni, the other stuff you mentioned is Ne.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Entropic said:


> Agreed. It's an irrational function so it's more about the data than the accuracy of data.
> 
> 
> @Scoobyscoob @VagrantFarce there's no point arguing with FAT about Ni. I know exactly what he's trying to get at with his picture but it's a very infantile version of what he's trying to reach at. Conceptually speaking, anyway. Ironically it's no better than the car example he was accusing me of potentially using even though I'd never use such an example, and that's because a moving car is about force, not time. A car that moves is a physical object moving through space and that requires force. There is, however, no time aspect involved as a car moving through space does not necessarily denote changes in terms of time.
> ...


Yes, FaT comes off as a very literal person. I don't really care if he types himself EIE, LIE, ESI, whatever. People mistype all the time or type themselves who they wish they could be. It's when he tries to talk about Ni then it becomes painfully clear that it's his PoLR. What's worse is that he then has the audacity to say I have a limited understanding of Ni when he's simply projecting his ignorance on to me. Classic prick/douchebag move, but I know he undoubtedly learned that from someone, as he doesn't necessarily seem like a bad person himself. At any rate, I've pinned him in my mind as an LSE-Te type as well as being hostile to the entire idea of Socionics and will approach him on this forum in the future as such.


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

> Ni Ni Introverted Intuition: development over time, historicity, cause and effect, consequences, repetition, archetypal themes and examples, looking for causes in history or the past, past-future forecasting of event dynamics, rhythm, delay or act-now, past-turned imagination
> 
> Ni Ni : a protracted and reflective state of mind, "falling out of time" and later trying to make up for lost activity, generalizing and abstracting past events from memory, using these generalizations to see what's going to happen, reflecting upon the past in order to be able to evaluate what is possible to do in the present moment and to predict the most likely course of events, patience that merges into inactivity
> 
> ...


http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Information_elements

Ne gets annoyed with Ni (and vice versa) because they think "dont knock it until you try it" "it IS possible that something else can happen, or it can go another way" and sometimes they are right and Ni was being too safe


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> You haven't explained how the literal motion of a flow from life to death and back is Ni. Or given me a single good example of it.


But it isn't the literal flow of motion from life to death and back that is Ni. It is the seeing of those changes and understanding where they are going. In that image, the cycle repeats in a completely predetermined way due to the technology used to create the symbol. Look beyond what is happening on your screen, and look at what that is saying about the cognition of people. Look at how the perception of something primarily via its motion and progression will differ when extrapolated to more complex situations.

The flower is a simplification, a tool for understanding a phenomenon more complex than the tool itself.

The flower being simple does not mean the flower is a bad example. If you think better examples are available, _provide one_.

EDIT: Think of it this way. Those images could be stills, each part of the aging set apart in different images. Yet Ni could look at it and perceive the same information that you see in the moving pictures. Because the Ni information is about where it is going, about what it means. That doesn't mean we need the motion to see where it goes - we see the motion ANYway. The moving pictures are there to help illustrate this.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Notice FaT that us Ni tpes will never be as submissive to you as Ne types are. Keep this in mind well, oh literal and uncreative Si type.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

O_o said:


> God, you guys are killing me, aw man :star:
> I saw this thread coming 22 years ago. It was a hunch.
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I know what you mean. I thought this was totally normal for most of my life. I'd sit there and occasionally I'd murmur "Ah, just as I thought" and other stuff when it got where I thought it was going. People give me odd looks and think I'm fronting, like seeing something coming is so unbelievable. To this day, he movies that hit me the most emotionally are the ones that I could not predict. Like Pulp Fiction. I could not see a certain famous scene in a basement coming back from the perspective of another famous scene in an apartment building with a long speech. It was not predictable, because of the vignette format. It really intensified the drama. Made my mind go hyperactive, trying to sort out where each vignette was going and how they all tied in. Managed about 60% accuracy, and that's low for me. I wish I could go back and try again sometimes, but since I already know how it goes now...can't really do that.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

LOL Non valuing of anything I value of. LoL


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> But it isn't the literal flow of motion from life to death and back that is Ni. It is the seeing of those changes and understanding where they are going. In that image, the cycle repeats in a completely predetermined way due to the technology used to create the symbol. Look beyond what is happening on your screen, and look at what that is saying about the cognition of people. Look at how the perception of something primarily via its motion and progression will differ when extrapolated to more complex situations.
> 
> The flower is a simplification, a tool for understanding a phenomenon more complex than the tool itself.
> 
> ...


But those images are literal representations of where they are coming going. The folding and unfolding is literally spelled out. All done for you. Not Ni. Sorry. And seeing a balloon inflate and deflate is the same thing. right? Ni? 

Yes, I said animation is Ni too. lol. 

It is a bad example because it is a conservation of an idea. There is no underlying unseen dynamics. It is simply a state change.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Or just your inability to accept something as being legitimate. Something you should get used to: Just because you don't accept something or refuse to accept something just means you maintain willful ignorance. That does not mean what you say is true and that especially does not mean you hold any authority on such matters. It would be quite the opposite actually.
> 
> You can go to the Wikipedia and look up Feynman's grandmother or how he bought disaster insurance the same year his home was destroyed due to natural disaster. Factually verifiable. Now, you were clearly referring to personality types then you'd be woefully wrong there too. Just within Western science there's the Big 5, the NEO-PI, DISC personality measure, even more rudimentary forms like the 4 humors is accepted as proto-personality typing in Western science. Just because you don't like the theory doesn't mean much, especially when you've shown you don't know much about personality types other than highlighting your own biases.


this sound like the defense of all cargo cult sciences. "Open your mind, man." Until your brain falls out. Guys like Feynman and Sagan were ignorant because they don't accept these theories, I know. 

You are talking like a psychic medium. Do you have any idea how dynamics work in reality? lol at the flood insurance thing.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Agreed. It's an irrational function so it's more about the data than the accuracy of data.
> 
> 
> @*Scoobyscoob* @*VagrantFarce* there's no point arguing with FAT about Ni. I know exactly what he's trying to get at with his picture but it's a very infantile version of what he's trying to reach at. Conceptually speaking, anyway. Ironically it's no better than the car example he was accusing me of potentially using even though I'd never use such an example, and that's because a moving car is about force, not time. A car that moves is a physical object moving through space and that requires force. There is, however, no time aspect involved as a car moving through space does not necessarily denote changes in terms of time. I think great examples of this include abandoned places; they keep aging, changing, being subject to entropic decay, despite being static in space.
> ...


A moving car moves through time does it not? Just like relationships advance through time. A car that moves is a physical object that moves through space AND time. You seriously have no idea what time is.

You just said that there is no time aspect to a moving car. That is all I have to say. lol. But I am the fool? Time IS movement. It is change. A moving car has a time aspect. You are not getting out of that folly. A moving car does not have a temporal aspect. Amazing. And you have the nerve to call me stupid. Time doesn't stop when a car moves. 

Let me put in a way you may be able to understand. Without time, nothing moves. Nothing does anything. Cars don't move. lol. Have you heard about this theory where space and time are woven together?

And do you realize your car goes through the same processes as that empty space? Entropy. Everything is always changing. 

And no, I don't have a hard time seeing a couple fighting may lead to a break up.




> _There is, however, no time aspect involved as a car moving through space does not necessarily denote changes in terms of time_


Yes it does.

TIME ALLOWS ALL THINGS. Don't you get that? It is what allows things to happen. Without time, everything is frozen. Including your little car. There cannot be motion, or force, without time. You just showed you have no idea how time affects an object moving in space. What movement is. Or what time is.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> A moving car moves through time does it not? Just like relationships advance through time. A car that moves is a physical object that moves through space AND time. You seriously have no idea what time is.


To move through time, you imply a level of freedom that a car simply does not have. The Delorean might, but a normal car does not. You see time continuing to advance while a car's force continues, and assume that the two are the same. But in a world where there is no time, force could still exist. Time is the continued progress of existence as seen from the vantage of past, present, and future as a WHOLE. In a world where there is only present, for example, time stands utterly still and yet the world still exists. Does that mean it lacks all motion. Not necessarily. To move through space is not to move through time, and vice versa. Imagine a being that stands outside of the dimension in which time is frozen. Such a being could reach into that dimension, and throw an object. The thrown objects force will continue until dissipated, yet that does not mean time advances. Time is decay. Entropy. The advancement of time is the wearing down of all things. Chaos, really. mere force obeys much more concrete laws. A car moving through space but frozen in time will simply not change from time acting on it. In that case, only force will act upon it.

If the car did move through time, it would not be linear. It would be capable of moving backwards and sideways. Instead, TIME MOVES THROUGH IT. It carries the car along whether it wants to or not. Time would have this effect whether the car is still or moving, although the movement of the cars parts renders it more susceptible to the ravages of time.



FearAndTrembling said:


> You just said that there is no time aspect to a moving car. That is all I have to say. lol. But I am the fool? Time IS movement. It is change. A moving car has a time aspect. You are not getting out of that folly. A moving car does not have a temporal aspect. Amazing. And you have the nerve to call me stupid. Time doesn't stop when a car moves.


Yes, time is movement and change. But the time aspect is more complicated than you make it out to be, and separate from the force element. Indeed, the reverse is true. Time doesn't stop when the car stops. A corollary which you imply is true by your statements.



FearAndTrembling said:


> And no, I don't have a hard time seeing a couple fighting may lead to a break up.


Let it go, dude. All types have access to and use Ni anyway, so why keep bringing this up? Even if it is right it doesn't affect anyone's types, including yours, because it isn't implying anyone is incapable.

Besides, it is more accurate to say that the functions can all reach that conclusion utilizing different information processing. So its not like that example was Ni exclusive. Stop nitpicking individual details and take the argument and the definition as a whole.



FearAndTrembling said:


> TIME ALLOWS ALL THINGS. Don't you get that? It is what allows things to happen. Without time, everything is frozen. Including your little car. There cannot be motion, or force, without time. You just showed you have no idea how time affects an object moving in space. What movement is. Or what time is.


No, *all things allow time*.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> To move through time, you imply a level of freedom that a car simply does not have. The Delorean might, but a normal car does not. You see time continuing to advance while a car's force continues, and assume that the two are the same. But in a world where there is no time, force could still exist. Time is the continued progress of existence as seen from the vantage of past, present, and future as a WHOLE. In a world where there is only present, for example, time stands utterly still and yet the world still exists. Does that mean it lacks all motion. Not necessarily. To move through space is not to move through time, and vice versa. Imagine a being that stands outside of the dimension in which time is frozen. Such a being could reach into that dimension, and throw an object. The thrown objects force will continue until dissipated, yet that does not mean time advances. Time is decay. Entropy. The advancement of time is the wearing down of all things. Chaos, really. mere force obeys much more concrete laws. A car moving through space but frozen in time will simply not change from time acting on it. In that case, only force will act upon it.
> 
> If the car did move through time, it would not be linear. It would be capable of moving backwards and sideways. Instead, TIME MOVES THROUGH IT. It carries the car along whether it wants to or not. Time would have this effect whether the car is still or moving, although the movement of the cars parts renders it more susceptible to the ravages of time.
> 
> ...


Everything is always moving through time. A car sitting there is moving through time. Time is a flame which we burn. That car is "burning" in time.

What is the present? It is never there. Or perceived. Where is it now? Or now? You never see the present. When time stops, the world exists. But does nothing. It is frozen. What moves in a world without time? Name something. Name one thing that moves without time. 

Like the old saying, you cannot step in the same river twice. Because it is not the same river and it is not the same man.

But if we really want to get into time. It is a supernumerary principle. Nobody perceives time. Like aging. They say it is time. It is just movement of one state to another. When you say a person ages you are referring to physiological changes. Physical things being rearranged. The movement of parts from one thing to another. Same thing as a quantum vacuum, a car, or anything else. Nobody senses time. It does not touch any sense organ. There is nothing you can call "time" that cannot be called something else.

Same thing goes for space. Also supernumerary. I am waving my hand through space. What is space? Molecules, etc. There is nothing you can call space that cannot be called something else as well.

So let's apply this logic and see that movement/change = time. Supernumerary principle applied to objects. Actually IS those objects. Just as space IS those objects.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But those images are literal representations of where they are coming going. The folding and unfolding is literally spelled out. All done for you. Not Ni. Sorry. And seeing a balloon inflate and deflate is the same thing. right? Ni?
> 
> Yes, I said animation is Ni too. lol.
> 
> It is a bad example because it is a conservation of an idea. There is no underlying unseen dynamics. It is simply a state change.


There are underlying dynamics. Apprehending them is essentially a decision process of what the thing viewed means to you, though. I agree that the flower is a bad example for this context, because it does not show what actually occurs in Ni processing. It merely hints at what general direction Ni is gazing in.

Let go of the literal interpretation. If you think that the literal image and its "state shifting" is what people call Ni, then you are mistaken.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Everything is always moving through time. A car sitting there is moving through time. Time is a flame which we burn. That car is "burning" in time.


Semantic disagreement. Bring something new to the table.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Semantic disagreement. Bring something new to the table.


Do you realize this whole field is nothing but semantics? And so is this argument? What else is there? You are essentially arguing philosophy of the mind. Stop replying then. 

Everything moves in time. A car has a temporal aspect. I don't think people really understand how time works. I was called an idiot by somebody who thinks time is not involved in the movement of a vehicle. It is involved in all events. That isn't semantics. That is a basic misunderstanding of how time affects objects and what time actually is. You don't want a real discussion about time. All it is is objects moving from one state to another with a supernumerary wrapper.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yeah, I know what you mean. I thought this was totally normal for most of my life. I'd sit there and occasionally I'd murmur "Ah, just as I thought" and other stuff when it got where I thought it was going. People give me odd looks and think I'm fronting, like seeing something coming is so unbelievable. To this day, he movies that hit me the most emotionally are the ones that I could not predict. Like Pulp Fiction. I could not see a certain famous scene in a basement coming back from the perspective of another famous scene in an apartment building with a long speech. It was not predictable, because of the vignette format. It really intensified the drama. Made my mind go hyperactive, trying to sort out where each vignette was going and how they all tied in. Managed about 60% accuracy, and that's low for me. I wish I could go back and try again sometimes, but since I already know how it goes now...can't really do that.


Lol I predicted the ending of the first Saw movie (Jigsaw on the floor) but discarded it because it seemed unlikely; then I went to the IMDB forum and everyone was like ibfjfbjfijeh!!!???!''! THAT WAS JIGSAW!!!??? lol. 

I tend to like symbolically deep movies though. It's interesting how simple themes can say something big about a person or a situation, like the wilting of a flower could represent the death of someone or something. I actually think the most powerful symbols in general are found in the simplest of things. Everything doesn't have to be grandiose in order to be meaningful.

Also, gl trying to make a blind man see. The problem isn't even that he's refusing to open his eyes; the problem is that he's so intent on staring at the sun he doesn't see anything else than its smoldering surface, forgetting that there is more to our galaxy than the sun at its center.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

And somebody used this Jung example I believe. About catching a fish. This is what I said about Bacon. The root of all superstition is to only count the hits but not the misses.

From the Skeptics dictionary:

The reason scientists do controlled studies rather than rely solely on their clinical observations and memories as Jung did is because it is easy to deceive ourselves and fit the data to our hypotheses and theories. Another Jungian anecdote will help exemplify this point. A male "sensation type" and a female "intuitive type" were in a boat on a lake. They were watching birds dive after fish. According to Jung, "they began to bet who would be the first to see the bird [when it emerged from the water]. Now you would think that the one who observes reality very carefully--the sensation type--would of course win out. Not at all. The woman won the bet completely. She was beating him on all points, _because by intuition she knew it beforehand" (306-307, emphasis added). One couple, one try. That's it. No more evidence is needed. The truth is that Jung doesn't know any more than I do why the woman was better at the game than the man. Perhaps the man lost on purpose as part of a misguided plan to seduce the woman. Who knows? But Jung is clearly begging the question with this and most of his other "observations of facts," as he calls these stories.


_^^can anyone seriously disagree with this critique?

Apply Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit. Surely another Si type here:


Sagan shares nine of these tools:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding _them_ is more challenging.
If there’s a chain of argument, _every_ link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data _equally well_ to choose the simpler.
Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.









Feynman is talking about typology there. lol. People just invent something on their typewriter and become an expert on it. Well done, Mr Feynman. And exactly what I was saying. He knows how hard it is to actually figure something out, because he has figured things out. Jung and these Socionics guys never put that work in. The arrogance of these claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Again, the difference between knowing something and knowing the name of something.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

@Fenix Wulfheart your example of objects moving during frozen time reminded me of this part of JoJo if I understood it correctly.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> this sound like the defense of all cargo cult sciences. "Open your mind, man." Until your brain falls out. Guys like Feynman and Sagan were ignorant because they don't accept these theories, I know.
> 
> You are talking like a psychic medium. Do you have any idea how dynamics work in reality? lol at the flood insurance thing.


You're one ignorant bloke. LoL


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I see this in the descriptions but I am confused about what this actually means. When I think 'predicting trends' I think 'they now what everyone will be wearing next year" which is probably/obviously not what is meant, but what does it mean? Is it just the ability to complete a pattern? What kind of patterns get completed?
> 
> Like this:
> 
> ...


My (Ne) predict(s) closure of this thread in 3-4 consecutive business days, and my (Ni) predicts this will be done by mod birdsintrees or mod* Figure*. My (Si) says this is fact, and if you disagree I will fight you about it with my (Se). 

QED.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

My Ni says some pathetic people are reaching desperation levels.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Scoobyscoob said:


> My Ni says some pathetic people are reaching desperation levels.


What a LIE™. Please (Se) your way out.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Self-deleted. Please continue on to the next post. :smile:


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Lol I predicted the ending of the first Saw movie (Jigsaw on the floor) but discarded it because it seemed unlikely; then I went to the IMDB forum and everyone was like ibfjfbjfijeh!!!???!''! THAT WAS JIGSAW!!!??? lol.
> 
> I tend to like symbolically deep movies though. It's interesting how simple themes can say something big about a person or a situation, like the wilting of a flower could represent the death of someone or something. I actually think the most powerful symbols in general are found in the simplest of things. Everything doesn't have to be grandiose in order to be meaningful.


When it comes to stories, do you find it easier to accurately predict ones that are closer to your quadra in tone? I usually tend to do the same thing as your example with Saw when I experience stories that are more Beta/Alpha in nature. If it makes little sense according to my personal vision of the development of narrative, I discard it, pretty much, and my speculation is that this personal sense of narrative is related to Quadra values, although another option could be that it's a matter of dimensionality(e.g. the creator and the viewer both being Intuitive ego, for example)

I immediately thought this was related to the divide between Ne/Si and Ni/Se, but unless it's a really Si/Ne-heavy story(_Pushing Daisies_, for example) I find Delta stories to be quite easy to accurately predict, while especially Beta and to a lesser degree Alpha stories tend to go in a direction I had conceived of, but deemed implausible. I don't really know what to make of it. It'd be interesting to hear your thoughts. Maybe Te/Fi stories try to match the set cultural standard of storytelling more, while Ti/Fe creates it's own system based on maximum emotional engagement?

Anyone else is obviously also welcome to chime in.


Regarding the OP: One way that Ni blocked with Te works for me is that I find it easy to get a sense of if a certain action is warranted immediately, or if the alternative of waiting would lead to something better in the longer run. A recent example came up when my Se-ego cousin and I started playing an MMORPG, and he received a really good in-game item by pure luck. He immediately wanted to sell it on the auction house were players can pay in-game currency for valuable items. So he asked me if he should put it up for a price that would guarantee someone buying it immediately, which would in turn allow him to buy the items he needed to start playing the second highest content available. I told him that it would be better to put it up for double that price over a longer timeframe, because if it got sold for the higher price he could buy the gear needed for the highest content available and skip the second tier content completely, thus maximizing his enjoyment of the game, and if the item didn't sell for the higher price he could relist it at the guaranteed selling-price instead, and the time spent waiting would not have been lost since all he had to do was find something else enjoyable to do in the meantime, while an immediate sale would remove the possibility of skipping the boring content entirely. (Of course there were other factors that played a role, such as my knowledge about the details of the current supply and demand, but the point is that intuition made me _hesitate_ where my cousin would have made a move, and that hesitation led to something better. So hesitation and doubt is in a symbiotic relationship to the Introverted Intuitive's ability to predict.)


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

For me this is basically having an idea of which outcomes are likely to happen, and depending of the information that I have beforehand they can be more or less accurate. One example was when I suspected that a method wouldn't work at all, as the nature of a compound that I had to simulate was different to the aminoacids that appeared in the database of a pKa calculator, and they indeed made not much sense as the program showed results that were illogical and plainly impossible to get if the experiment was done using the real enzyme and substrate.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

*Thread Warning:

*Unsolicited typing, typism, and trolling are against forum rules and not tolerated. Further instances from any other participants on this thread will result in corrective action. Please consult forum rules or PM a moderator for details on what constitutes unsolicited typing, typism, and trolling, if there are open questions.


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

Just wanted to provide a contrasting example to the couple fighting scenario as seen by an Ne-user:

I would probably feel bad as in "oh no! I hope they don't break up," but several different scenarios will occur to me almost at once:

- This could help them understand each other and they will stay together
- they might break up
- they might break up but stay friends
- it might get more complicated than the above scenarios
...etc. I am also referencing past experiences of mine and others along with hypothetical scenarios. I believe the referencing past is what Si is? 

My father is an Ni user, and I can't say what goes on in his mind but he has told me that people often come to him for advice because he can predict a) behavior b) events c) processes etc...and I honestly I don't understand it on an intuitive level lol but it sounds so cool.

Ne often jumps around, doing a little bit of everything at once, coming back, going somewhere else again, then coming back again. Doing as inspiration/interest strikes. It needs to be interesting and not boring, or I feel impatient/restless...want to do something else instead.



O_o said:


> God, you guys are killing me, aw man :star:
> I saw this thread coming 22 years ago. It was a hunch.
> 
> 
> ...


It's not so much predicting for me, as it is connecting to other movies, songs, life, books, people, conversations, literally anything. I continuously make connections, I am not really trying to figure out the "big picture" of the film (unless I have to? Like I took film over summer and we had to write down essays over them and of course we needed a thesis and usually I can see multiple ways to approach this but I think I used my Fi to narrow it down to the one that I understood on an intuitive level. Could still have used a different approach but wouldn't have been as good at it.) as I am seeing multiple pictures it can simultanerously possibly (lol) fit into. So yeah, I agree that what you are saying could potentially be Ni-specific because I can't relate.

And yeah it seems to me like Ni understands time in a way Ne doesn't, trying to bring all the connections into one picture that extends backwards and forwards in time. Ne is more in the moment what strikes, many different possibilities, more fractured but still "big picture" in a way iNtuition is.

Any other Ne-users have a comment on this ?


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

I see these as examples of Ni:

* *


















Ray Bradbury talking from 6:30 - 8:15


* *












And if you want to really get out there. Aronofsky's films feel very Ni. David Lynch too:


* *


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I see this in the descriptions but I am confused about what this actually means. When I think 'predicting trends' I think 'they now what everyone will be wearing next year" which is probably/obviously not what is meant, but what does it mean? Is it just the ability to complete a pattern? What kind of patterns get completed?
> ?


As you can see I have first-handedly demonstrated Ni ::



Catwalk said:


> My (Ne) predict(s) closure of this thread in 3-4 consecutive business days, and my (Ni) predicts this will be done by mod birdsintrees or mod* Figure*. My (Si) says this is fact, and if you disagree I will fight you about it with my (Se).
> 
> QED.




(Via) forming patternization / connection(s) of 'sensed' discombobulation and negative enforcement :: Starting from observation(s) -- [perceptive intake] -- from (pg. #1-#3) through subjective selection(s) of the mod '*Figure*'. I knew _he_ was coming.



> *Thread Warning:
> 
> *Unsolicited typing, typism, and trolling are against forum rules and not tolerated. Further instances from any other participants on this thread will result in corrective action. Please consult forum rules or PM a moderator for details on what constitutes unsolicited typing, typism, and trolling, if there are open questions.


This is what (Ni) looks like. Now, you could've told me *STOP! THAT'S NOT TRUE!* To which I will firmly shake my head (&) arrogantly assert otherwise.

[HR][/HR]

If my (Ne) prediction hold(s) correctly - this thread should be terminated in 3-5 consecutive business day(s) based off nothing at all but a wide-range possibility which is so irrational (&) uncertain you are thinking BS Sherlock - I bet it will stay open for 6 day(s), not 5!

#QED #Leet #KEK #Typology .


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

This would be considered Ni to Jung, can anybody tell me why?


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> This would be considered Ni to Jung, can anybody tell me why?


Wooden toy sword. Fight between nature and humanity. That toy sword is a harbinger of the regression in medication that will come from the future effects of mass deforestation, as over 90% of human diseases are known to be treated by prescription drugs derived from nature. Jung knew, years ahead.
Do I win? I definitely win.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

O_o said:


> Wooden toy sword. Fight between nature and humanity. That toy sword is a harbinger of the regression in medication that will come from the future effects of mass deforestation, as over 90% of human deceases are known to be treated by prescription drugs derived from nature. Freud knew, years ahead.
> Do I win? I definitely win. :drooling:


I thought it was more Fatty the Crank, Bringer of Truth, Screams into the Woods, Butchered and Derided by the Masses.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

lets mosey said:


> I thought it was more Fatty the Crank, Bringer of Truth, Screams into the Woods, Butchered and Derided by the Masses.


Daw Mosey, no! You are bringing down the tanks here.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

O_o said:


> Daw Mosey, no! You are bringing down the tanks here. Idk what to even do with you anymore.


Apologies.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Verity said:


> I immediately thought this was related to the divide between Ne/Si and Ni/Se, but unless it's a really Si/Ne-heavy story(_Pushing Daisies_, for example) I find Delta stories to be quite easy to accurately predict, while especially Beta and to a lesser degree Alpha stories tend to go in a direction I had conceived of, but deemed implausible. I don't really know what to make of it. It'd be interesting to hear your thoughts. Maybe Te/Fi stories try to match the set cultural standard of storytelling more, while Ti/Fe creates it's own system based on maximum emotional engagement?


That's interesting. I find Alpha and Beta stories easier to predict (provided that the story has a linear time development, unlike Pulp Fiction for example). I tend to find some movies, particularly the classics, all follow the same general lines and thus are easier to predict. When things go the "usual" way, I am a little disappointed. Like, its too cliche or something. I like when screenwriters go outside that norm, and deliver something that can surprise or delight me. I'm looking for how the movie was made to hold up to its own standards, and thus stand apart from the pack. That's also why I like alt-future or alt=past roleplaying games. Because you get to explore themes of how things could have or would have been different if we don't hold to the assumptions that we hold to be true in our world today. Why should telling a story in this one certain way be better?

But I don't like it if it isn't really believable, which I find Alpha stories sometimes are. Like that old movie attack of the killer tomatoes. Or some of the elements of my favorite game, Shadowrun. So I am always tinkering with them and making my own rules. I add to the setting a lot when I GM these games, and I strip certain other things. I want the world to be internally consistent and congruent with my ideas of what that world would *really* be like.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Verity said:


> Regarding the OP: One way that Ni blocked with Te works for me is that I find it easy to get a sense of if a certain action is warranted immediately, or if the alternative of waiting would lead to something better in the longer run. A recent example came up when my Se-ego cousin and I started playing an MMORPG, and he received a really good in-game item by pure luck. He immediately wanted to sell it on the auction house were players can pay in-game currency for valuable items. So he asked me if he should put it up for a price that would guarantee someone buying it immediately, which would in turn allow him to buy the items he needed to start playing the second highest content available. I told him that it would be better to put it up for double that price over a longer timeframe, because if it got sold for the higher price he could buy the gear needed for the highest content available and skip the second tier content completely, thus maximizing his enjoyment of the game, and if the item didn't sell for the higher price he could relist it at the guaranteed selling-price instead, and the time spent waiting would not have been lost since all he had to do was find something else enjoyable to do in the meantime, while an immediate sale would remove the possibility of skipping the boring content entirely. (Of course there were other factors that played a role, such as my knowledge about the details of the current supply and demand, but the point is that intuition made me _hesitate_ where my cousin would have made a move, and that hesitation led to something better. So hesitation and doubt is in a symbiotic relationship to the Introverted Intuitive's ability to predict.)


This is so straightforward to me that I genuinely wonder if this is what Ni and Te comes down to, if this is truly inaccessible to most people. Having said that, I like the last point you've made.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Do you realize this whole field is nothing but semantics? And so is this argument? What else is there? You are essentially arguing philosophy of the mind. Stop replying then.
> 
> Everything moves in time. A car has a temporal aspect. I don't think people really understand how time works. I was called an idiot by somebody who thinks time is not involved in the movement of a vehicle. It is involved in all events. That isn't semantics. That is a basic misunderstanding of how time affects objects and what time actually is. You don't want a real discussion about time. All it is is objects moving from one state to another with a supernumerary wrapper.


Yes and no. A car that is moving does indeed move alongside time. Time is always progressing forward. We are unable to reverse time or to halt it in place. However, if the car does not get driven around and stays at rest somewhere, it is still moving forward in time. Time is moving independently of the force aspect. These two concepts are not actually linked in the manner you describe because each has its own operation independently of the other. Similarly, time is not accelerated when you stomp the gas as you are driving. However, your perception of it will be. Time is subjectively experienced by all people, but it works according to certain rules.

The fundamental flow of your argument is that you are assuming correlation is equivalent to causation. Time moves when the car moves, therefore time moves the car. It doesn't work that way.

This is why we can say as a corollary that time and force do not rely on one another. If force were to rely on time (as opposed to operate concurrently with one another), then they would not be discretely separate entities. Were that to be the case, force itself would be a subset of time. In that sense, then, yes. Time would "allow" force. The provlem there is that force can be released in a microsecond, or it can be released over hours, or anywhere between, and in any amount. The amount of force released or the duration does not change time, only the perception of it. Force and time have no impact on one another in this sense. I can detonate the entire world with nuclear blasts over the course of an hour, and the impact on time is no different than going for a walk for an hour.

If force and time have no impact on one another, I don't see how they could be one and the same concept. And if time is subjectively experienced, then it is seen by a subjective perceptive function. That is Ni and Si. We know time is subjectively experienced due to the effect of chemicals on reaction time and perception of time flow. Unless I am much mistaken, there have been studies on this. But even more so, you can tell for yourself that it happens. Just go get in a bar fight and pay attention to the flow of time as you sense it. The flow is different at rest, and when stressed. You can tell. Get excited about a new activity and do it for hours. It is easy to lose track of time if you try. Why does "time fly when you are having fun"? Because it is subjectively experienced, and fun distracts from that subjective experience.

Yes, we could argue that the entire model is invalid. That there is no Ni and Si. But if we do that, then we are at an impasse. Because then there is nothing to talk about. The nature of time is already laid out by people much more scientifically rigorous than I. What could either of us add to this debate? For anything else to be said with any basis in reality, we must accept that, objectively, time does exist and it does operate according to certain rules, and that we as humans can perceive its flow. Even if that perception is rooted in the observation of states changing, the impact it has on our psyche is still there. And it is that impact we are trying to get at with concepts like Ni and Si. So whether the theory is right or not, we have a phenomenon to discuss here. If Ni and Si are wrong, then what do we call this impact and what effect does it have on the psyche and on the world?

@lets mosey I don't think Ni and Te are inaccessible to most people. I think a lot of people doubt their validity because waiting and not accomplishing things right away is currently devalued by a lot of people. I mean, that sort of attitude was once revered above other attitudes. I am fairly sure people with Ni as their first function used to be the shamans and wise men and what not, because everyone else chose to prioritize concrete things. Humans were once a much more spiritual race, and subjective spirituality is also an element of Ni. Subjective self perception of abstracted things. As spirituality falls to the wayside in the name of science, Ni is being suppressed. And so Ni types are "weird", and Ni impressions are "delusions", and people try hard not to even think that way. Its also why I think Ni ends up overemphasized in religious organizations and groups. Because at least some Ni is kind of necessary. One need not be an Ni type to believe, obviously, but I think "having a religious experience" is Ni information. Regardless of type. Abstract subjective experience.

What I think *is* unusual is the experience of Ni as a dominant function, and then also accepting that experience as valid. Ni is suppressed enough that people may refuse to even admit to seeing the world that way.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> This would be considered Ni to Jung, can anybody tell me why?


I'll bite

a. Four lines coming into one central axis point defining the cross
b. You've pictured a Latin cross which is more readily associated with Christianity than the Greek cross [which strikes me more Ni-ish just because it could be outlined with a circle] so I guess this basic symbol being taken out of the story of Jesus to represent redemption of sins, etc. as well as the Christian community as a whole...is Ni because...you see a cross and it immediately calls to mind Christianity...idk


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

lets mosey said:


> This is so straightforward to me that I genuinely wonder if this is what Ni and Te comes down to, if this is truly inaccessible to most people. Having said that, I like the last point you've made.


Yeah, it becomes quite mundane when you bring it down to trivial stuff like that. And well, everyone uses Ni and Te to some degree.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Verity said:


> Yeah, it becomes quite mundane when you bring it down to trivial stuff like that. And well, everyone uses Ni and Te to some degree.


For what it's worth, I do think it's worth discussing the more mundane ways intuition plays out, and I wonder how this helps or alters @*Phoenix Virtue*'s perception of Ni specifically. ("Should we be treating Ni egos like the Oracle at Delphi?")


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yes and no. A car that is moving does indeed move alongside time. Time is always progressing forward. We are unable to reverse time or to halt it in place. However, if the car does not get driven around and stays at rest somewhere, it is still moving forward in time. Time is moving independently of the force aspect. These two concepts are not actually linked in the manner you describe because each has its own operation independently of the other. Similarly, time is not accelerated when you stomp the gas as you are driving. However, your perception of it will be. Time is subjectively experienced by all people, but it works according to certain rules.
> 
> The fundamental flow of your argument is that you are assuming correlation is equivalent to causation. Time moves when the car moves, therefore time moves the car. It doesn't work that way.
> 
> ...


I didn't say force and time are the same thing. I am saying physical mechanics and time are the same thing. Any time you measure time you refer to physical mechanics. What the car is doing through time is changing its structure from the quantum level on up. Like that flower. Like a sitting statue. Like anything that exists. It is all in flux. Dialectics. There is a death growing in all of our lives. In all living things. It gets bigger everyday. That seed. The Yin and Yang stuff. There is always a seed of Yin in the Yang and a seed of Yang in the Yin. 

You know what else is subjectively experienced? Just about everything. Is that Ni and Si too? Every person on here is subjectively experiencing other people, places and things. Interpreting their words and behavior subjectively. Eyewitness accounts. These are not properties of Si and Ni. Life is subjectively experienced. And time actually sounds more like Si by your logic, which I agree with, --your point how we subjectively experience time based on inner sensations-- because it is subjective inner sensation impression. A person most in touch with their inner sensations should be the best at making more accurate time out of them. Be more knowledgeable about them. Since time is a a subjective inner sensory perception. Based on sensation.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

lets mosey said:


> For what it's worth, I do think it's worth discussing the more mundane ways intuition plays out, and I wonder how this helps or alters @*Phoenix Virtue*'s perception of Ni specifically. ("Should we be treating Ni egos like the Oracle at Delphi?")


I should say, the Oracle of Delphi thing was specifically about 'visions of past and future' because that sounds...supernatural and I doubt there are [or should be] supernatural elements in the personality system
But mundane aspects are definitely helpful for my understanding)


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I should say, the Oracle of Delphi thing was specifically about 'visions of past and future' because that sounds...supernatural and I doubt there are [or should be] supernatural elements in the personality system
> But mundane aspects are definitely helpful for my understanding)


Don't worry, I got it. I was referring to how some people seem to lift intuition to such great heights that they don't stop to think about how it plays out realistically in day-to-day life.


----------



## Verity (Aug 2, 2014)

lets mosey said:


> For what it's worth, I do think it's worth discussing the more mundane ways intuition plays out, and I wonder how this helps or alters @*Phoenix Virtue*'s perception of Ni specifically. ("Should we be treating Ni egos like the Oracle at Delphi?")


On a tangentially related note, I find that some people don't consider the negative sides of Ni enough. I mean sure, we can attribute tons of amazing things like the ability to predict the future to it, but indolence, a perpetual state of doubt and one's contradictions constantly nudging one's shoulder play an equal part. I also think the romantic picture of Ni being these sublime visions can be attributed more to Beta descriptions, where Ni is blocked with Fe and therefore manifests less dryly.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> I'll bite
> 
> a. Four lines coming into one central axis point defining the cross
> b. You've pictured a Latin cross which is more readily associated with Christianity than the Greek cross [which strikes me more Ni-ish just because it could be outlined with a circle] so I guess this basic symbol being taken out of the story of Jesus to represent redemption of sins, etc. as well as the Christian community as a whole...is Ni because...you see a cross and it immediately calls to mind Christianity...idk



It is irrational first of all. It is a physical representation of something that cannot be represented physically. It represents another world. In that world, the materials the cross is made out of do not exist. There is nothing from that other world in that cross. But there is something from that other world in the cross. Symbols unite worlds. 

Also the magic power of 3. The higher 3rd Jung talked about. 3 out of 1. How can one person be 3 people? The father, son and holy spirit. Same way the Ego, Id and Superego can be the same person. 3 in one. Hegelian dialectic: 3 in one.


----------



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

@FearAndTrembling
That seems like an overly complicated way of explaining it...


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

lets mosey said:


> This is so straightforward to me that I genuinely wonder if this is what Ni and Te comes down to, if this is truly inaccessible to most people. Having said that, I like the last point you've made.


Trust me it can be really difficult and not straightforward at all... the first time I did the same thing -- auction things in an MMORPG -- I was so stressed out I almost gave myself a headache because I knew nothing and I was whining for help to basically everyone in my ingame legion. Granted now that I have practice, it's really easy, but in general doing things in the most efficient way for the best possible result can be very difficult in a new situation. And of course, this applies to real life, not just games and dumb shit like that.


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Night Huntress said:


> Trust me it can be really difficult and not straightforward at all... the first time I did the same thing -- auction things in an MMORPG -- I was so stressed out I almost gave myself a headache because I knew nothing and I was whining for help to basically everyone in my ingame legion. Granted now that I have practice, it's really easy, but in general doing things in the most efficient way for the best possible result can be very difficult in a new situation. And of course, this applies to real life, not just games and dumb shit like that.


Oh, absolutely, but the preference for waiting and weighing it out seemed straightforward in the sense that I expect more people to prefer this. At least I tend to prefer it, and his experience is familiar to me (but as was mentioned, everyone has these abilities to some degree). Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply the example was irrelevant or poor.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

lets mosey said:


> Oh, absolutely, but the preference for waiting and weighing it out seemed straightforward in the sense that I expect more people to prefer this. At least I tend to prefer it, and his experience is familiar to me (but as was mentioned, everyone has these abilities to some degree). Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply the example was irrelevant or poor.


Yeah I dunno, I don't think I ever have the patience to wait and weigh things out. Sometimes I can wait TOO LONG out of sheer nervousness and confusion, though. For me to do something at exactly the right time requires a tremendous amount of thought and caution. But I don't deny I probably have done things at the right time in normal situations too; I don't trust my ability in that regard though. 

If I thought the example was poor I wouldn't have related to it :tongue:


----------



## Immolate (Mar 8, 2015)

Night Huntress said:


> Yeah I dunno, I don't think I ever have the patience to wait and weigh things out. Sometimes I can wait TOO LONG out of sheer nervousness and confusion, though. For me to do something at exactly the right time requires a tremendous amount of thought and caution. But I don't deny I probably have done things at the right time in normal situations too; I don't trust my ability in that regard though.
> 
> *If I thought the example was poor I wouldn't have related to it* :tongue:


I was just hoping I personally didn't come across as devaluing his post 

That's a good point about waiting too long out of sheer nervousness. Knowing when and why to act is certainly key.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

lets mosey said:


> I was just hoping I personally didn't come across as devaluing his post
> 
> That's a good point about waiting too long out of sheer nervousness. Knowing when and why to act is certainly key.


The problem is when I want something, I want it *now*. I want to strategize now, make the decisions now, and move now. Because if I don't, it will be gone tomorrow. People say things like "you should detach yourself from your desires" and tell me to wait, see how things play out in the future before making a move. I can do that very grudgingly, but it's very discouraging to suppress that huge burst of energy and enthusiasm. It's only after I calm down -- which can take days or even weeks -- that I realize how emotionally spurred on I was, and how it may not have been such a big deal after all.

(I'd say @Verity actually knows this a little too well about me, for better or worse. :mellow

As an example, once there was a flash sale on some cute sweaters in a store that I subscribe to email alerts from. They were each just $15 or so, and looked so gorgeous. The moment I saw them I fell in love, and I was THIS close to purchasing them right away. But I didn't know how they would look on me. A couple of people I was texting stopped me, and said that in my position they'd wait to go to the store the next day and actually physically try those sweaters on. But I was like, the flash sale ends IN AN HOUR! And the store is closed!! I have to buy it now or I'll lose this offer forever! And after a lot of coaxing and reasoning they managed to stop me from spending a huge amount of money on those sweaters. But I was really upset, because the sale had ended and they were back to being like double the price. A couple of days later I went to the store and tried out the sweater I liked -- luckily they had it in stock just like it was online. It turns out it looked really misshapen and boring on me, and buying it would have been a colossal waste. What's more -- within a couple of weeks they were selling it for $2. That's right -- just $2. That was enough to tell me that basically no one was buying those sweaters and if I did I'd have been an idiot. So, waiting made me really upset, but it saved me a lot of money. It tends to.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

I didn't understand the auction example at all [haven't played that (game?)] but as far as long-term planning and such I can relate to lack of Ni (Ni PoLR?) in that even if I can clearly see that 'if I wait to make a move I can pool these resources and then get something that will pay off in the long run' I never do that because...well, having a plan to get something later definitely does not feel like having something now

I have [mostly financial] rules for myself like 'It is always better to have less of a higher-quality thing' and 'always push for the more permanent/less physical thing' [i.e. it's better to buy clothes than food, and so on up the chain] but I'm too much a slave to immediate gratification

Applies to things I dislike too, for instance whenever I set a long-term goal such as...reading a book I pace myself but then I get too anxious to finish. For instance I stayed up all night just to finish the last half of Ulysses, and the last quarter of War and Peace, not because I actually enjoyed them but because I wanted to be done _then_

Probably just a problem of immediate gratification though


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Also, Fe egos don't react this way but they would actually probably thank my contributing to the discussion because I expressed an honest opinion.


That's for sure.

And thank you. (heh, see what I did there? )

Nah, but seriously, I do agree with that sentiment. It jives with my experience of Fe types as well. Hell, it jives with my experience of ILEs, even.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

My ILE friend often predicts exact lines out of movies and their plotline. She has watched so many films that even with newly released movies she is able to guess the dialogue and the scenes that are going to happen next. This is while being Ni-ignoring. 

I've seen both LSEs and ESEs make accurate predictions regarding economic developments in the country, despite being Ni polr.

Based on this experience to me it is obvious that Ni is not the function of prediction and being the "village Oracle". Many other types can predict things, but the mental process of how they arrived there is likely based on their TIM.

This confusion of Ni for oracular abilities seems to originate with Carl Jung deciding to name whatever Ni/Ne are supposed to represent as "intuition", while in actuality the mental function that Nx represents is not really intuition in the conventional meaning of this word. Many types besides Ni ones can have intuition, premonitions, vibes about what's going to happen next or in the future. In each case, their particular TIM affects how they have gotten there, but does not prevent them from having intuition or vibes about the future in the first place. 

In a way Ni actually hampers with making predictions. The problems of Ni types is that after observing something unfold over time, they project it into the future and expect for something similar to occur. While many processes will repeat again, each cycle is not quite like the past one, and each time something completely new might happen - with this Ni is helpless, since it's working from past observations it cannot account for evolution of radically new forms and processes because these weren't a part of the old cycles.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sylas said:


> My ILE friend often predicts exact lines out of movies and their plotline. She has watched so many films that even with newly released movies she is able to guess the dialogue and the scenes that are going to happen next. This is while being Ni-ignoring.
> 
> I've seen both LSEs and ESEs make accurate predictions regarding economic developments in the country, despite being Ni polr.
> 
> ...


Ne can't seem to predict anything in an ever changing world. The Oracle of Delphi started off as an IEI advising SLE rulers and eventually made its way to being EII advising LSE rulers.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> @*mistakenforstranger* have you seen the movie Embrace of the Serpent? I think that is a Ni movie and a movie I would recommend. Best picture of last year imo. The Revenant is almost a poor man's version of this story. And what about Werner Herzog?
> 
> *The story of the relationship between Karamakate, an Amazonian shaman and last survivor of his people, and two scientists who work together over the course of 40 years to search the Amazon for a sacred healing plant.*


No, I have not seen it, or anything by Werner Herzog, but the preview is intriguing and looks to be Ni in nature. I think other filmmakers besides Aronofsky, Lynch, and Malick, as Ni-egos, may be Cronenberg, Von Trier, Kubrick, and possibly Bergman.

T.S. Eliot has to be Ni, right?


* *




Burnt Norton

I

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.
But to what purpose
Disturbing the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves
I do not know.
Other echoes
Inhabit the garden. Shall we follow?
Quick, said the bird, find them, find them,
Round the corner. Through the first gate,
Into our first world, shall we follow
The deception of the thrush? Into our first world.
There they were, dignified, invisible,
Moving without pressure, over the dead leaves,
In the autumn heat, through the vibrant air,
And the bird called, in response to
The unheard music hidden in the shrubbery,
And the unseen eyebeam crossed, for the roses
Had the look of flowers that are looked at.
There they were as our guests, accepted and accepting.
So we moved, and they, in a formal pattern,
Along the empty alley, into the box circle,
To look down into the drained pool.
Dry the pool, dry concrete, brown edged,
And the pool was filled with water out of sunlight,
And the lotos rose, quietly, quietly,
The surface glittered out of heart of light,
And they were behind us, reflected in the pool.
Then a cloud passed, and the pool was empty.
Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of children,
Hidden excitedly, containing laughter.
Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.
Time past and time future
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Herzog is hardcore:

*Werner Herzog*: And what haunts me, is that in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed, I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy. I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature. To me, there is no such thing as a secret world of the bears. And this blank stare speaks only of a half-bored interest in food. But for Timothy Treadwell, this bear was a friend, a savior.

His movies are great. The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser is the story of Jesus. Think about it. lol. You want to find symbolism in movies. Watch that shit. 


The subtitle of the movie is : "Every man for himself and God against all." 

And a guy who comes king of the apes. Cave of Forgotten Dreams. He is brilliant. 


This penguin is us:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

mistakenforstranger said:


> No, I have not seen it, or anything by Werner Herzog, but the preview is intriguing and looks to be Ni in nature. I think other filmmakers besides Aronofsky, Lynch, and Malick, as Ni-egos, may be Cronenberg, Von Trier, Kubrick, and possibly Bergman.
> 
> T.S. Eliot has to be Ni, right?
> 
> ...



I'll add this:

Do I dare 

Disturb the universe? 

In a minute there is time 

For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. 

-TS Eliot


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Ne can't seem to predict anything in an ever changing world. The Oracle of Delphi started off as an IEI advising SLE rulers and eventually made its way to being EII advising LSE rulers.


There is a Si database of points that Ne gathers from which it is able to predict things with very high degree of accuracy. It's especially great at spotting the emergence of new processes and trends and predicting their future course, something that Ni struggles with muchly.

This is from a Ne-ENFp description which is Ni-ignoring:

[Ne-IEE] Able to see ahead, has a good sense for future development and prospect of affairs and relations. Perceives danger ahead of time, and tries to take measures to eliminate it in advance. Surprises people around him by his gift of prescience, as his predictions often come true.​
IEE subtypes - Wikisocion


----------



## starvingautist (Mar 23, 2015)

@Fenix Wulfheart

But if there were no forces, no time would pass. Imagine two particles in a void, and that they can't interact. Then nothing changes; no time passes. As soon as you allow them to interact you allow for time.

Also, M-theory attempts to unify the fundamental forces.. so you could say that all forces are gravity.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Time can pass while two things do not interact at all, though. So in the case of two particles frozen in space, time can still pass.

So what this means is that Time allows for Force to take place, but Force does not allow for Time to take place. They have a dependent relationship. However, if time were able to be controlled, stopped for a moment by a piece of technology, would freezing time freeze force?

Let's say I have a freeze ray that puts something in a no Time zone. If you throw something at me and I freeze it, does the force continue apart from time or does the force freeze with time? When I end the time stop effect, does the object drop like a stone or does it continue on in the same trajectory at the same speed? I would think so. Time allows for Force to happen, to progress, but Force is not cancelled out by time stopping. It is paused. The two are not directly related, which would be implies if the absence of one completely negated the presence of another. Rather, each is governed by its own rules, and they have logical relationships with one another.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Another...question? which I thought of due to this conversation but is not really pertinent I think; I haven't really understood this conversation :sad:

I don't remember the original example but if I hear 'this man abused his wife for many years' I assume classic situation. I want to understand it better - say, I want to be in the man's body before he beats his wife, to understand the impulse or thoughts that lead to this - sympathetic backstories don't do that much for me because obviously there are a set of circumstances that lead to anyone doing anything. Doesn't make things more excusable.

That's not my question though, but about Ne - it very much annoys me to hear a situation relayed - 'this man hit his wife' - to hear someone draw a conclusion 'he is abusive' and then invariably there's that one person who makes up some reason it might not be so bad under the pretense of 'you can't judge'. 

I don't see how that is Ne. It is just refraining from judgement. "There are other possibilities therefore nothing". Ne based on my understanding considers other ideas that have _potential_, not just generic 'other ideas'. I see Ne egos as likely to latch onto an alternate reading of a situation based on this idea having more to offer for some reason, even if it's less likely, but not so much just noting that there are alternate possibilities and that being it. That attitude strikes me as more 1D Ne, being aware that there are more possibilities and just shutting down from that situation as a result.

This is probably based more on MBTI ideas but I'm just curious to hear where this fits into Socionics.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

An excellent point, @Phoenix Virtue. I don't have any more to offer on that line other than to agree, that does seem rather low dimensional Ne. I think the way you put that really helps show the difference between STRONG Ne and STRONG Ni. Neither one is really closeminded in that sense of denying stuff because both are intuition and perceptive. They simply seek to go about that perception in different ways.


----------

