# How do I develop Ne as an INTJ?



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

Hello,

I was wondering if someone can give some exercises or some ideal of how to go about developing Ne as an INTJ. 

The description that I have seen of Ne implies that it is like a spark which explores different possibilities almost instantaneously and then highlights the most relevant or possible one. In the process, it creates a tangled mess of subconscious ideas (like a strand of christmas light bulbs!) that can then be explained, or even explored, with Te. Ne users see their intuition as objective, which is cool. 

I get the impression that the workings of Ne is always more consciously obvious to the user than say Ni. 

I'm an INTJ, so I guess this would be developing a 'shadow function' or something.

--- Heres a description of Ne from Enfpleasantly 


> “What is your opinion or experience with your extroverted intuition? How is it like for you, I have heard it is like exploding an object/deconstructing an object into all of the symbols and meanings that you have associated with it, and then sort of 'intuiting' the connections. Sort of like a cloud of ideas in your head? I've never experienced this so i am curious!”
> 
> Explosion is more like it that cloud to me. Imagine an electrical impulse that is signaled to take off and explore as soon as a stimuli triggers it. This electrical impulse seemingly divides itself and each piece goes down a different pathway. All at the same time, there are so many different paths being explored. At the end of each path is the outcome, and you see many outcomes because of the exploration, but one stands out the most.
> 
> ...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

It would be the ability to think of possibilities and instead of seeing which one seems more likely or to be of more value and worth over others, it would be seeing them as held of equal value and worth. For example: Maybe I'm an INTJ because XYZ, but I could equally be an INTP because of XYZ. Both seem as plausible or possible to me, is it possible to be two types? 

There's no reason for an INTJ to develop Ne since it means you would have to give up your ego orientation of introversion which is pretty much impossible unless you're an ambivert, at which point you don't have to develop anything in the first place because your intuition isn't differentiated.


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> It would be the ability to think of possibilities and instead of seeing which one seems more likely or to be of more value than worth over others, it would be seeing them as held of equal value and worth. For example: Maybe I'm an INTJ because XYZ, but I could equally be an INTP because of XYZ. Both seem as plausible or possible to me, is it possible to be two types?
> 
> There's no reason for an INTJ to develop Ne since it means you would have to give up your ego orientation of introversion which is pretty much impossible unless you're an ambivert, at which point you don't have to develop anything in the first place because your intuition isn't differentiated.


So maybe developing Ne involves being less logical sometimes? 

Theres definitely a reason to develop an Ne as an INTJ. It makes me OP, and it sounds awfully fun 

I just don't get how intuition can generate multiple possibilities automatically, vs say one with Ni.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

StarryHawaii said:


> So maybe developing Ne involves being less logical sometimes?
> 
> Theres definitely a reason to develop an Ne as an INTJ. It makes me OP, and it sounds awfully fun
> 
> I just don't get how intuition can generate multiple possibilities automatically, vs say one with Ni.


Philosophy of *Ne*: Everything is possible. Everything can be made into anything. What you see is not the whole picture - there is more to it. And you constantly seek what is there behind "the curtain"; muse over connections and barrage the unknown. 
As everything is possible - you see a potential in what you are doing and so you keep going. This is where our curiosity comes from. 

I did read recently that people experience Ni when they try to predict the future or deduct something.
By this analogy, I would say if you want to "train" your Ne, you could fantasize as many interesting scenarios of a specific event as you can. Try to write a novel and think of multiple possibilities of development.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

StarryHawaii said:


> So maybe developing Ne involves being less logical sometimes?
> 
> Theres definitely a reason to develop an Ne as an INTJ. It makes me OP, and it sounds awfully fun
> 
> I just don't get how intuition can generate multiple possibilities automatically, vs say one with Ni.


Thanks for disregarding everything I wrote and showing zero interest in actually understanding how the theory works. I just told you that it's not possible and no, it won't make you OP because you can't Ne as you Ni. That's just N which is neither Ne nor Ni because the function isn't differentiated. 

If you are a genuine Ni type Se will solve all your Pe needs so there is no need to Ne, ever. As an Ni dom what is the point of Ne when I can Se? Se actually balances my cognition and is a part of my preference, Ne is _not_. I see zero relevance in the development of shadow functions. I think a balanced and rounded psyche achieves that by accepting its actual weaknesses that are repressed which in this case would be the inferior function. 

Also, Ne vs Ni isn't really multiple vs singular possibilities. That's not how introversion and extroversion work. It's about ego focus, what kind of weight we place on things. Ni places weight on personal importance, Ne does not, and that's about it.


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> Thanks for disregarding everything I wrote and showing zero interest in actually understanding how the theory works. I just told you that it's not possible and no, it won't make you OP because you can't Ne as you Ni. That's just N which is neither Ne nor Ni because the function isn't differentiated.
> 
> If you are a genuine Ni type Se will solve all your Pe needs so there is no need to Ne, ever.
> 
> Also, Ne vs Ni isn't really multiple vs singular possibilities. That's not how introversion and extroversion work. It's about ego focus, what kind of weight we place on things. Ni places weight on personal importance, Ne does not, and that's about it.


Since when were scientists interested in people saying no to their crazy ideals Of course I'm going to ignore you, you said it wasn't possible. I'm looking for answers, not naysayers

Also I figure since I'm not really good at inspiring people (into), then only people who were really interested would answer; so its ok I'm not that good at inspiring people or whatever is required to get some posting


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

Aha said:


> Philosophy of *Ne*: Everything is possible. Everything can be made into anything. What you see is not the whole picture - there is more to it. And you constantly seek what is there behind "the curtain"; muse over connections and barrage the unknown.
> As everything is possible - you see a potential in what you are doing and so you keep going. This is where our curiosity comes from.
> 
> I did read recently that people experience Ni when they try to predict the future or deduct something.
> By this analogy, I would say if you want to "train" your Ne, you could fantasize as many interesting scenarios of a specific event as you can. Try to write a novel and think of multiple possibilities of development.


That sounds hard! I know creative freewriting is really good, and I've developed a method around that that is more specific to intuition. 

Daydreaming may be good, thats what INFPs do 

I wonder, though, how you would get that "cloud of ideas" that seems characteristic of extrovert intuitives.


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

StarryHawaii said:


> Since when were scientists interested in people saying no to their crazy ideals Of course I'm going to ignore you, you said it wasn't possible. I'm looking for answers, not naysayers


It's not possible if you believe Myers-Briggs theory is true.

If you have developed Ne, you're not an INTJ. If you're an INTJ, you don't have Ne.

It's not that complicated.


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

dinkytown said:


> It's not possible if you believe Myers-Briggs theory is true.
> 
> If you have developed Ne, you're not an INTJ. If you're an INTJ, you don't have Ne.
> 
> It's not that complicated.


False. There exists shadow functions that people develop when they grow older


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Thanks for disregarding everything I wrote and showing zero interest in actually understanding how the theory works. I just told you that it's not possible and no, it won't make you OP because you can't Ne as you Ni. That's just N which is neither Ne nor Ni because the function isn't differentiated.
> 
> If you are a genuine Ni type Se will solve all your Pe needs so there is no need to Ne, ever. As an Ni dom what is the point of Ne when I can Se? Se actually balances my cognition and is a part of my preference, Ne is _not_. I see zero relevance in the development of shadow functions. I think a balanced and rounded psyche achieves that by accepting its actual weaknesses that are repressed which in this case would be the inferior function.
> 
> Also, Ne vs Ni isn't really multiple vs singular possibilities. That's not how introversion and extroversion work. It's about ego focus, what kind of weight we place on things. Ni places weight on personal importance, Ne does not, and that's about it.


I agree. There is this constant dissonance where Ni types indicate that they see a wealth of intuitive possibilities... and this has caused some confusion. I think this stems from a wrong view of Se, but also from our failure to consider that Ni and Ne really are rather the same thing entirely... except in how they engage with our ego, in a sense. Ni, as you aptly said, gives weight to a particular perception of the nature of any given thing. It seems to hold tie this into the ego, to use it as a cognitive foundation. This is a peculiarity of Ni that does not exclude more of what N does - which is to perceive archetypal aspects of anything. 

Ne and Ni perceive archetypal aspects - even all possible archetypal aspects. That accomplished, Ni seeks to distill or weigh one for use as a foundation (upon which to build judgments and other perceptions)... Ne fulfills that role with Si, and thus uses this perception as a tool of induction (to dynamicize their Si foundation and their judgments) .... just as Ni types have Se as an inductive foil.

And now we've arrived back at the point. I don't think that Ni types do or can possess Ne, as they already have N entirely, and all adding Ne would theoretically do is disrupt their well-working cognition quite unnecessarily. 

The question, in effect, is wrong.


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

StarryHawaii said:


> So maybe developing Ne involves being less logical sometimes?


Ne has nothing to do with logic. It's a way of gathering information, it's not a way of thinking and processing information. You either gather information through Ne, or you don't.



> Theres definitely a reason to develop an Ne as an INTJ. It makes me OP, and it sounds awfully fun


Ne sounds "fun" to me, too. But I don't have it and there's no way I ever will.



> I just don't get how intuition can generate multiple possibilities automatically, vs say one with Ni.


That's because you don't have it. INTJ's gather information through objectively sensing physical realities (Se) and then subjectively infer meaning from that (Ni). In fact, they're really damn good at seeing the connections and meanings behind the physical realities.

Ne types don't do this. They have their own way of perception (Ne-Si). If you're an INTJ, you don't have it either and never will.

Play to your strengths. Any "Ne" you develop will never have any semlance of real Ne and will come off as a caricature.


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

StarryHawaii said:


> False. There exists shadow functions that people develop when they grow older


No.

People develop their tertiary and inferior functions as they grow older. In your case Fi and Se. Shadow functions are almost never touched.

Watch this:


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

Well here's a description of Ne, from an Ne users perspective, to get the ideas bouncing.

-------


> “What is your opinion or experience with your extroverted intuition? How is it like for you, I have heard it is like exploding an object/deconstructing an object into all of the symbols and meanings that you have associated with it, and then sort of 'intuiting' the connections. Sort of like a cloud of ideas in your head? I've never experienced this so i am curious!”
> 
> Explosion is more like it that cloud to me. Imagine an electrical impulse that is signaled to take off and explore as soon as a stimuli triggers it. This electrical impulse seemingly divides itself and each piece goes down a different pathway. All at the same time, there are so many different paths being explored. At the end of each path is the outcome, and you see many outcomes because of the exploration, but one stands out the most.
> 
> ...


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

dinkytown said:


> Ne has nothing to do with logic. It's a way of gathering information, it's not a way of thinking and processing information. You either gather information through Ne, or you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was actually being a little sarcastic here, sorry  If you consider two things to be possible, then you're being less logical because logic involves the mutually exclusive grouping of things, so they would only be both possible because of an underlying difference that is intuited, but not fully described by logic 

I'm more interested in intuition which involves past knowledge - similar to freewriting in how it produced new ideas from whatever you've experienced. So in that way, Se would only be applicable in gather knowledge that Ni can use. 

In the realm of abstract ideas, Se isn't useful because it involves an outward perception of whats surrounding you.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

StarryHawaii said:


> Hello,
> 
> I was wondering if someone can give some exercises or some ideal of how to go about developing Ne as an INTJ.
> 
> ...


Ne descriptions are exaggerated, like most descriptions I think. It won't make you a supercomputer, and it's not some kind of special superpower that makes you instantly able to think of and evaluate all possibilities at once. I can't speak for all Ne types, but for me it's simply a perspective or awareness that we never really see the whole picture, so there are always more possibilities and interpretations. For example, I could be an INTP, but depending on how I interpret the theory, I could also be an INFP, ENTP, ENFP, ISTJ, etc. 

Ni doesn't work this way. Ni would say given everything that I've observed and know with Se, this one interpretation is the most likely. No need to keep considering every single possibility unless there's a problem with this one. If you're a Ni type, you don't need Ne because you trust that you can see the world objectively with Se.

With practice, you might be able to improve your ability to come up with multiple ideas and possibilities, but it wouldn't be Ne, necessarily, unless of course you're actually a Ne type. As I explained, Ne is a perspective, not just brainstorming. (Well actually, that's just one perspective. If you want to consider all acts of brainstorming and expanding possibilites Ne, it's possible to make that definition work too. See what I did there? )


----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

StarryHawaii said:


> I was actually being a little sarcastic here, sorry  If you consider two things to be possible, then you're being less logical because logic involves the mutually exclusive grouping of things, so they would only be both possible because of an underlying difference that is intuited, but not fully described by logic
> 
> I'm more interested in intuition which involves past knowledge - similar to freewriting in how it produced new ideas from whatever you've experienced. So in that way, Se would only be applicable in gather knowledge that Ni can use.
> 
> In the realm of abstract ideas, Se isn't useful because it involves an outward perception of whats surrounding you


I give up. You're clueless.


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

dinkytown said:


> I give up. You're clueless.


K bye


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

StarryHawaii said:


> Since when were scientists interested in people saying no to their crazy ideals Of course I'm going to ignore you, you said it wasn't possible. I'm looking for answers, not naysayers
> 
> Also I figure since I'm not really good at inspiring people (into), then only people who were really interested would answer; so its ok I'm not that good at inspiring people or whatever is required to get some posting


Which just reinforces my already existing hunch - you're not an Ni type in the first place but an Ne type so there you go. Ne's gonna Ne and that's all there is to it. It's not about naysaying but it's about what's actually theoretically meaningful and possible. If you seek to expand the theory go ahead, but at least understand wtf you are trying to expand first before you do so, and you clearly don't.


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> Which just reinforces my already existing hunch - you're not an Ni type in the first place but an Ne type so there you go. Ne's gonna Ne and that's all there is to it. It's not about naysaying but it's about what's actually theoretically meaningful and possible. If you seek to expand the theory go ahead, but at least understand wtf you are trying to expand first before you do so, and you clearly don't.


K bye. And actually Ni was my highest


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

Silveresque said:


> Ne descriptions are exaggerated, like most descriptions I think. It won't make you a supercomputer, and it's not some kind of special superpower that makes you instantly able to think of and evaluate all possibilities at once. I can't speak for all Ne types, but for me it's simply a perspective or awareness that we never really see the whole picture, so there are always more possibilities and interpretations. For example, I could be an INTP, but depending on how I interpret the theory, I could also be an INFP, ENTP, ENFP, ISTJ, etc.
> 
> Ni doesn't work this way. Ni would say given everything that I've observed and know with Se, this one interpretation is the most likely. No need to keep considering every single possibility unless there's a problem with this one. If you're a Ni type, you don't need Ne because you trust that you can see the world objectively with Se.
> 
> With practice, you might be able to improve your ability to come up with multiple ideas and possibilities, but it wouldn't be Ne, necessarily, unless of course you're actually a Ne type. As I explained, Ne is a perspective, not just brainstorming. (Well actually, that's just one perspective. If you want to consider all acts of brainstorming and expanding possibilites Ne, it's possible to make that definition work too. See what I did there? )


Wait, did you redefine brainstorming  
I've had fun in the past in making up words which had an underlying meaning, just like english words, and then just trying to make sentences with the new made up words. Its fun, but sort of stressful at times!


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Paralax2000 said:


> _The opposite would have been surprising._


I suppose you'll remain unsurprised.





> I would love to meet that person…Oh, but wait, is it me you are talking about?


Actually no, it wasn't your quote but this one:

_



Its too stressful to think of switching myer briggs type, so i stick with INTJ because I'm actually a physics undergraduate, and I would be annoyed pretending to switch! So then I pretend everything is possible, while sticking to being an INTJ; but only like a psychologist does (sort of), purely scientific ...

Click to expand...

_


----------



## Potne Theron (Nov 10, 2013)

Flatliner said:


> I don't know why some people, apparently like yourself, have this need to set things in stone to where you can't move or change them. Systems do not have to be _static_ - or be looked at statically - in order to have meaning and applicability to the real world. I'd argue that when you find something in real life that should but does not fit a system, that system probably needs to change, but it takes a long time for whole organizations to shift their stances (for various reasons) while the individual has more flexibility. That is the potential advantage in talking to individuals on a forum like this where everyone is exercising their own rationality. I digress, however, and I have a point to make.
> 
> Let's look at what you're doing here. Guy comes in, asks how he can develop Ne as an INTJ.
> 
> ...


The voice of wisdom. True scientific mind. Thanks for refreshing this whole thread


----------



## Potne Theron (Nov 10, 2013)

Figure said:


> I suppose you'll remain unsurprised.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

Nonsense said:


> How so?


Because "thinking outside the box" is such a non-specific notion. Isn't it just a matter of making up your own mind rather than following a preset paradigm?
I have a hard time seeing how that would be specific to Ne, no smart Ni user could really be qualified as unable to think outside the box. I don't think throwing the expression around is increasing anyone's understanding of the functions..


----------



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

Hurricane said:


> Because "thinking outside the box" is such a non-specific notion. Isn't it just a matter of making up your own mind rather than following a preset paradigm?
> I have a hard time seeing how that would be specific to Ne, no smart Ni user could really be qualified as unable to think outside the box. I don't think throwing the expression around is increasing anyone's understanding of the functions..


Unconventional thinking, yes. I'm sure not only Ne-users can do that, but it's fitting because it brings to mind someone whose point of view is off the wall and expansive. So in that way it makes sense to apply it to extroverted intuition. (To me anyway.)


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

dinkytown said:


> So basically what your saying is that the entire framework of functions within mbti as established is horseshit?
> 
> That's a perfectly valid claim. Just don't try and pretend your "spontaneously evolving magic functions later in life" hoopla is a part of Myers Briggs. It's not. It's your own theory.


Science changes over time. Psychology changes over time. Philosophy meanders around and never really gets anywhere (but it's fun, so what the hey).

Point is, MBTI and the Cognitive Functions theories are only useful as static ideas, as long as they keep up with the times. Dario Nardi's work with the EEG is a good example of taking the discussion to a new level; a level that we didn't have the technology to reach in the past.

I mean, we still call science "science," even though we changed our minds about the Earth being flat. And I'm sure that most of us are comfortable with continuing to call the functions "functions," even if we play around with what that actually means.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> The thing is, I don't think Ni is any better or worse at brainstorming than Ne is. That's the thing. Ne isn't about brainstorming but Ne is about the cognitive interest to weigh all options as of equal value and worth. It's as valid to claim that my house will turn into a cheeseburger as it is valid to claim that we will terraform Mars in the future. On this forum, one of the most commonly expressed sentiments of Ne users is the idea that if I got type result X on a test, but then Y, does it mean I am also X and Y? Or even worse; "maybe I am really type Z that I never considered before but could also be possible!" Do you see, Ne weighs both results as equally valid. It cannot discriminate between where one option would be more valid or of more importance.
> 
> Ni can brainstorm for sure, but Ni will brainstorm in order to find a desirable option, not necessarily brainstorming for brainstorming's sake. While one can argue that this brainstorming could be a result of Ne ignoring in how Ne feeds Ni options, I think it is better to look at Ne ignoring as that - Ni types ignore Ne. That's what I do. When I see Ne types going on Ne rants, I ignore it because I go on mental tl;dr.


This is slightly discriminating against how Ne works. 

Ne indeed considers many ideas to have the same impact, while Ni has more defined priorities, that's true, but in all the function stacks, Ne is paired with Ti or Fi, which are meant to set some borders to how far the Ne's brainstorming can extend. 

Most Ne users need to vocalize their ideas or concerns (in extreme cases, mental diarrhea), because once something has been put into words, Ne-users can easily "cross the odd man out", "cross out what is irrelevant", and continue to slowly close in on the truest answers, or best solutions. Ne's thought process is not worse than Ni's thought process, it's simply a different way to reach closer to the truth.

For example, this pic:










Ni user would hypothetically be seeing the white triangle right away, because other symbols imitate that there must be a white triangle kind of shape on top of the borderlined triangle and the circles. Ni user would not pay too much attention on this, because if it looks like there is a white triangle, there most probably is a white triangle, as in "the simplest explanation is most correct." While Ni-user would think that it might be possible for a white triangle for not to be there, it is largely ignored, because it is easier to prove that this white triangle exists than the other way around.

Ne user would hypothetically put more focus on the shapes that imitate the white triangle there, and "see what is not there", which is the broken borderlines and sliced circles, and assume that there might be a white triangle, but they can not be sure, as it could be an illusion. These two options have the same value for Ne-user, and for that reason, they can not state with full confidence that there even is a white triangle at all in this picture.





Aha said:


> I must say, for some people there are two auxiliary functions. Especially if they can really be applied - like Fe for ENTP or Te for ENFP. Though they will not be as decisive as *the* auxiliary.
> 
> As for the shadow functions - either you are glitched enough to experience them or I am not sure what you must do to "train" them. If your most inferior function (and shadow to boot) is Ti and you want to "develop" it, what would you do? Doing math (btw, how you even able doing it, I ask INFP?) on your leisure-time? :crazy:
> 
> p.s. Why not :happy:


That is not really an auxiliary function by CF theory's definition, that would be either tertiary or inferior/dual-seeking function.

Easy answer to your second question - functions are not that narrowly applicable. I think that doing Math that is more complex than simply calculating very well fits to the realm of perceiving functions. Here's a quote where I explained this further:




KraChZiMan said:


> ...Other functions, for example, are perfectly able to support a person in doing math.
> 
> How I would ideally see this happening, for example, is how Ne imagines all the possible results and methods to solve a calculation, and narrows it down to few ways that can lead to the correct result. Se creates a sort of tunnel vision and sets a strong focus to persistently keep solving the calculation until the sufficient answer is reached. Ni creates a tendency for person to define the nature of this calculation, imagine and play scenarios in the head what this calculation implies within, and provides great understanding needed to solve calculation. Si is sharp attention to details of calculations, and applying "common sense" to come up with solution. Te is willingness to test many various methods that apply to this calculation, and finding the one that provides the right answer. Ti is realizing the nature of this calculation, principles that apply to it, and find the right method to solve this calculation. Fe is... not feeling any shame in little cheating? And perhaps, a motivation to solve the problem because there are social benefits to this. And Fi is conviction that equation must be solved, else they feel bad about themselves all day.


Basically, many cognitive functions are applied in tasks that are as complex as solving a math problem. 

Here is a quote from Wiki socionics that refers to what happens when, for example, INFP would want to "develop" introverted thinking:




> Introverted Thinking as a role (3rd) function (ISFP and INFP)





> The individual is able to talk about things from a dispassionate academic or theoretical point of view for brief periods of time, but seems overly bookish when doing so and tends to grows tense. When feeling obliged to justify logically a personal decision taken for reasons determined by Fi, the individual attempts to do so but grows quickly annoyed especially if the inconsistency in the logical argument is pointed out. He then either explains the ethical motivation or avoids the issue altogether.




Also, thank you for your concern but being able to do math really doesn't matter in regards to my MBTI type, it only matters that I am an art student and math is not in my curriculum, fortunately roud:


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

KraChZiMan said:


> For example, this pic:


I want to ask where it came from (pic)

Now, my first impressions upon seeing (before reading):
1) Oh little circles have eaten triangle's sides (see the picture below of association) (0-0,1s)
1) Seems like some visual representation of something, maybe Socionics? (triangle and circles) (0.1-0.2s)
2) Oh wait, maybe it is some kind of arrows... meeeh, no (0.2s-0.4s)
3) ah lol it is a white triangle inside (0.4-0.6s)
4) but what do circles mean besides pointing out the vertexes? (0.6s-4s)
5) probably nothing. Btw, how many triangles is there on the picture (4s-15s)


----------



## Forest_for_the_Trees (May 3, 2013)

Flatliner said:


> I don't know why some people, apparently like yourself, have this need to set things in stone to where you can't move or change them. Systems do not have to be _static_ - or be looked at statically - in order to have meaning and applicability to the real world. I'd argue that when you find something in real life that should but does not fit a system, that system probably needs to change, but it takes a long time for whole organizations to shift their stances (for various reasons) while the individual has more flexibility. That is the potential advantage in talking to individuals on a forum like this where everyone is exercising their own rationality. I digress, however, and I have a point to make.


Amen! say nay to the naysayers!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> This is slightly discriminating against how Ne works.
> 
> Ne indeed considers many ideas to have the same impact, while Ni has more defined priorities, that's true, but in all the function stacks, Ne is paired with Ti or Fi, which are meant to set some borders to how far the Ne's brainstorming can extend.
> 
> ...



But I wasn't talking about how ne works with ji but how ne is at its core vs how ni is at its core.


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

Aha said:


> I want to ask where it came from (pic)
> 
> Now, my first impressions upon seeing (before reading):
> 1) Oh little circles have eaten triangle's sides (see the picture below of association) (0-0,1s)
> ...



My first lighting thought was also Ms Pacman !! 
But I imagine them vomiting the white rays that formed the white triangle I saw right after...


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

You don't really need Ne as much because your a J.
Why start thinking of possibilities of what something could be if you have stronger functions to use to find the truth.

I can see why you would want to develop it, I certainly would like to develop more Ni but It would never be as natural and useful as Ne is for me.


----------



## Nordom (Oct 12, 2011)

I'd ask yourself some questions.
-Do you have a good or bad memory? I know INTJs like trimming the fat; almost like a memory dump to keep systems running as efficiently as possible, so to speak. INTPs store that extraneous information for later use to compare and contrast and see if the data could still be useful someday, at the cost of arriving at a quick efficient answer.
-What sort of patterns do you notice? What about movies and tv shows? If you were to critique them could you apply the same criticism to other movies or shows you've seen without having to watch the entire movie?
-Can you mimic other people's behavior? What characteristics do you use when attempting to do this? Who do they remind you of?

I'm not suggesting you or other INTJs can't do this or do this as well as anyone, but can you imagine applying more value or spending more time thinking about any of the above?
Oh and you may inadvertantely develop Si as well since I can't imagine having one without the other.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Ne as ignoring function in socionics describes your attitude towards Ne more than it does your utilization of Ne.


This. I am comfortable with typology outlining your relationship with all 8 functions, but quite resistant to the idea that an individual utilizes them all actively in their cognition. 



Krisena said:


> You're probably right. Nevertheless the brainstorming exercise should be a counter-intuitive (heh) and healthy excercise for any Ni user. Simulating Ne like this creates some awesome cognitive dissonance that could be compared to for me trying to simulate Te by listing the pros and cons of making a certain choice and not caring about the feelings of the people involved. It was interesting to see, but I couldn't go through with it. :/


I quoted this as an example of what I see as an 'overly objective' view of functions. Thinking "Ne is brainstorming so when I brainstorm, that is Ne" is not correct (whether or not you were doing that, I am still using you as a springboard). It is not so literal and tidy as that. That is the core problem with many of the arguments in this thread - defining functions by their superficial qualities or ostensible associations. Ne is not brainstorming so brainstorming is not Ne. This removes most if not all arguments for an 8 function model. Those attempting to brand the functions in this way are actually creating a whole new system - an effigy of the functions and basing their view of typology around it. @_Paralax2000_ is thus completely correct, but is arguing from another system entirely. 



ephemereality said:


> Ne isn't about brainstorming but Ne is about the cognitive interest to weigh all options as of equal value and worth.


Up to here, yes, but then you hit a trap...



ephemereality said:


> It's as valid to claim that my house will turn into a cheeseburger as it is valid to claim that we will terraform Mars in the future.


This isn't Ne. I actually have an interesting thought on this one. I think it is not that Ne provides this.. but that it is provided outside or regardless of cognition... and it is Pe that FAILS to filter it or restrict it. It is thus not Ne, or Se, but simply that they are not mechanisms that .. er.. care(!) about it. Asking an ENFP about this stuff, Ne simply wouldn't care. 

What I know for sure is that it is NOT Ne. Does Ni deal in cheeseburgers? (HAHA!) Ne doesn't deal with anything tangible, in and of itself. Not at all. 



ephemereality said:


> On this forum, one of the most commonly expressed sentiments of Ne users is the idea that if I got type result X on a test, but then Y, does it mean I am also X and Y? Or even worse; "maybe I am really type Z that I never considered before but could also be possible!" Do you see, Ne weighs both results as equally valid. It cannot discriminate between where one option would be more valid or of more importance.


I actually think that Judgment functions are a big culprit here. Mostly Fe, given your example, but also other ones. Ti forces Ne to keep generating angles because it is unsatisfied. Fe disrupts conceptual perceptions because they are not a value ideal. Also, I think Fe is the core aspect of people who are raving about 'POSSSiibbilliittieees' because it is invigorating to them. I see this most in strong Fe types, and not at all in, say, ENFPs. Which is ironic. 

So, the big problem with your example here, as I see it, is this. This stuff simply doesn't happen for most actual NPs and if it does, it is usually (E)NTPs. However, I think that Ne needs to be subjected to a judgment function for this to really work, and specifically it feels like Fe is the big culprit here. Thus it would be xSFJs that manifest what you are saying, of the Ne types. I would not remotely apply your example to even most ENTPs. 

I personally perceive this thing you describe in SPs as well, though only superficially. I mean that for SP types, it seems like 'anything could be possible' is exactly what they would say, but they mean it in manifestation. 'It can look any different way', rather than, 'conceptual openness x5!!!!!' <--- which is really more Fe than Ne, per se as I could see an ESTP doing it. I have specifically seen your example from SP types. SFPs being the more exacting, and STPs being the most disruptive. Both speak of it as 'possibilities' often as not. 

If I were to outline my experiences with typing people:

NP: Brief conversation in which they quickly and capably induct the core concepts and we both nod sagely at the realization that they are Ne. Old news. Objective, agile, mature, easily utilized conceptualization. Now, lets get busy developing crappy new extensions and tangent theories about all this. Yay. Short Type Me threads for NTPs, usually no thread at all for NFPs - no Ti to overthink it, I guess. 

SP: Ni pushes me away as Se (and Jx) floods the conversation with dynamics in the form of exceptions and tons of 'but I do this, but I do this, but I do this... could it be X?' TOO MUCH DATA! ...and Ni is never satisfied in it's subconscious role, so they are just a blackhole of swirling data (which they may very well characterize as possibilities, and often do) and a greedy and insatiable Ni attempting to make a holistic view but never able to stem the tide of sensory dynamics. This is a very common fixture in the type me subforum and in my personal experiences. SPs are a pain in the ass to type and struggle to type themselves because of all that swirling STUFF. Long as hell threads, with the SFP dumping stuff all over and thinking too bluntly, and STP dumping stuff and overthinking it. 

NJ: Mostly just like SP to be honest, except that all that swirling data gets deprioritized. Instead, Ni stands as an impossible-to-reach brass ring, an impassive god, while Se still sees the whole thing as too dynamic in manifestation. You'll spend a lot more time discussing in the abstract, with Ni doms it will be almost all of the time, with Se acting more of a distant foil. If there is a need for a thread, it's gonna be a big nasty slugfest as Ni, here played by Nemesis, looks on.

SJ: Sometimes like NP, but often brutally undermined by stereotyping. The thing is, SJs are GOOD stereotypers. It's difficult to penetrate, and is insidious. Often will mistype themselves as NPs because, hilariously, of stereotypes. SJ types can be such good stereotypers, actually, that it can get downright accurate and meaningful. Sometimes they blindside me with a super accurate typing that I didn't consider, simply because they are so grounded with their subjective perception. Like with NJ, if you can get them pointed in the right direction, they can really do a lot to fix a lot of the other types shortcomings on the ability to cut out the crap with sensory impressions and get to the abstract core of human mannerisms and behavior. Short threads, unless you got an Je/Ne looper on the loose (usually Fe/Ne, though I have seen at least one ESTJ do this) Then it's not even so much a long thread as it is pointless altogether. 



ephemereality said:


> Ni can brainstorm for sure, but Ni will brainstorm in order to find a desirable option, not necessarily brainstorming for brainstorming's sake. While one can argue that this brainstorming could be a result of Ne ignoring in how Ne feeds Ni options, I think it is better to look at Ne ignoring as that - Ni types ignore Ne. That's what I do. When I see Ne types going on Ne rants, I ignore it because I go on mental tl;dr.


I would characterize Ne as quickly (and in the case of NP types, usually capably if imprecisely) inducting the most 'desirable' (I'd say resonant) option, but then staying in ready mode for any other resonant option to appear. It is simply objective. These perspectives are used to restructure, through J, Si. They are not unrestrained, just objective. Ni would naturally find this frustrating as it opposes the cognitive .. er... mechanism... of NJ brains. It is the same as when you throw STUFF at NP types. It is frustrating because our S is subjective and used as a carefully curated foundation. You can't just throw shit at it .... that's madness. You are trying to take our foundation and use it as an... induction mechanism? Are you nuts? Often we might perceive it as just wind. Wind. The same as Ni perceives Ne. It isn't wind, it is objective. 



Aha said:


> I must say, for some people there are two auxiliary functions. Especially if they can really be applied - like Fe for ENTP or Te for ENFP. Though they will not be as decisive as *the* auxiliary.
> 
> As for the shadow functions - either you are glitched enough to experience them or I am not sure what you must do to "train" them. If your most inferior function (and shadow to boot) is Ti and you want to "develop" it, what would you do? Doing math (btw, how you even able doing it, I ask INFP?) on your leisure-time? :crazy:
> 
> p.s. Why not :happy:


This an example of what I said before... seeing the functions in an overly objective/superficial way and letting Ti play with the idea of them in a void. The association with Ti and maths, (and if so, how could an INFP even do it!? Ti asks) should raise an immediate red flag that you are viewing the functions wrongly. Superficially, in this case. 



Flatliner said:


> MBTI's premise as you've just stated it may or may not be flawed. I'd err on the side of it being flawed, because humans appear to be born with certain specifics like recognizing human faces over others, mother's specifics over other humans', but otherwise a lot of potential that is there for them to develop in the coming years. You aren't, then, technically born with type, because you would have to be born with a full and complete ego and developed perspectives for this to be the case; rather, you're born with the likelihood of developing one type over another.


This 'begs the question'. Rather, it it does not follow, nor is it implicit, that the vicissitudes of human development - and thus the ostensible manifestation of certain things we associate with type - means that type begins unwritten. Just because a duck in it's egg doesn't look or act like a duck, doesn't change the inevitability of it's development. It is not an egg of uncertain potential, simply because we cannot presently discern its fate. We say, 'well it looks like a goopy mess in a shell now, so right now it is an insect... but not quite, though it appears to be changing so what it is not only can't be known, but is fundamentally unwritten. Actually, it's a duck. 



Paralax2000 said:


> How is it possible not to use Ti or Ni as a scientist?


Replace Ti with Te. Replace Ni with Ne. Why couldn't you?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

arkigos said:


> This 'begs the question'. Rather, it it does not follow, nor is it implicit, that the vicissitudes of human development - and thus the ostensible manifestation of certain things we associate with type - means that type begins unwritten. Just because a duck in it's egg doesn't look or act like a duck, doesn't change the inevitability of it's development. It is not an egg of uncertain potential, simply because we cannot presently discern its fate. We say, 'well it looks like a goopy mess in a shell now, so right now it is an insect... but not quite, though it appears to be changing so what it is not only can't be known, but is fundamentally unwritten. Actually, it's a duck.


And we all, ostensibly, develop into a type, or a regular way of thinking, due to egoic priority.

But not all types are alike and I don't think type templates are necessarily as neat as some expect - i.e. not all are born with the concrete necessity of becoming one specific type. If you were born with the tendency toward INTJ, it probably started with introversion, then you entered into perceptions that aligned themselves gradually with Ni alongside a rejection of Se. Then perhaps there was wiggle room for you with the Te/Fi vs Fe/Ti question or perhaps not depending on the nature of your own mind - I think especially the auxiliaries may manifest as 'type soup', where it can take more conscious effort or thinking to separate them and make them clear.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@arkigos I'm busy. I'll get back to you later. Also, I'm tired with a slight headache. You are free to explain how Ne works for you. I can only rely on my personal observations as I have come to understand that I have zero personal sense of how it actually works in someone's brain as in, how one experiences it. I merely understand it conceptually and perhaps at times, poorly, because I want to compare it to the equivalent of what I possess i.e. Se, but is of inferior character so that inferiority is likely carried over to my general Pe understanding, one degree or another. I have no idea how Pe is like when it's egoic more than a vague sense of how Se is like for me which is not quite the same of course, to someone who has it as a dominant aspect in their psyche.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

arkigos said:


> This an example of what I said before... seeing the functions in an overly objective/superficial way and letting Ti play with the idea of them in a void. The association with Ti and maths, (and if so, how could an INFP even do it!? Ti asks) should raise an immediate red flag that you are viewing the functions wrongly. Superficially, in this case.


Oh, you really take everything seriously. It was an irony. My brother is an INFP - I know what math is for FiNeSiTe


----------



## Potne Theron (Nov 10, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Here is a quote from Wiki socionics that refers to what happens when, for example, INFP would want to "develop" introverted thinking:
> 
> [...]When feeling obliged to justify logically a personal decision taken for reasons determined by Fi, the individual attempts to do so but grows quickly annoyed especially if the inconsistency in the logical argument is pointed out. He then either explains the ethical motivation or avoids the issue altogether


We talked earlier about stereotypes or even misconceptions, this is clearly one of them. It is not because T dominant users (or whoever) do not understand the reasons behind Fi decisions (quoted here as "ethical") that they are not logical in their own right. I know it is hard to understand for some people and, yet, it remains a truth. Not to mention the prejudice we sometimes read that Fi dominant cannot think properly because they have no Ti and that Te is their inferior function.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

arkigos said:


> Ni and Ne really are rather the same thing entirely... except in how they engage with our ego, in a sense. Ni, as you aptly said, gives weight to a particular perception of the nature of any given thing. It seems to hold tie this into the ego, to use it as a cognitive foundation. This is a peculiarity of Ni that does not exclude more of what N does - which is to perceive archetypal aspects of anything.
> 
> Ne and Ni perceive archetypal aspects - even all possible archetypal aspects. That accomplished, Ni seeks to distill or weigh one for use as a foundation (upon which to build judgments and other perceptions)... Ne fulfills that role with Si, and thus uses this perception as a tool of induction (to dynamicize their Si foundation and their judgments) .... just as Ni types have Se as an inductive foil.
> 
> And now we've arrived back at the point. I don't think that Ni types do or can possess Ne, as they already have N entirely, and all adding Ne would theoretically do is disrupt their well-working cognition quite unnecessarily.


I think that this is the best summary of this thread 
Moreover, I think, the *N* can switch its behavior in certain situations and switch back afterwards. What do you think?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Argh, awesome discussion that I am too restless in the membrane to read all of...

Regardless-- I hold to the philosophy that one should stick with the functions that one has, and develop those in a balanced way instead.

One should be true to one's nature.


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

I don't think this thread is about trauma, though it has been mentioned ...
I should change the title of this thread - How can I improve my Ne?
This thread has taken an uncomfortable spin, so yeah .......... talk about something else, please


----------



## pretense (Jan 2, 2013)

StarryHawaii said:


> I don't think this thread is about trauma, though it has been mentioned ...
> I should change the title of this thread - How can I improve my Ne?
> This thread has taken an uncomfortable spin, so yeah .......... talk about something else, please


Personally, I felt your original topic was pretty lame and rather amateur. It has evolved into something much more interesting.

...but yeah, maybe this could continue in a different thread, idk. As long as it continues I don't really care.


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

consciousness said:


> Personally, I felt your original topic was pretty lame and rather amateur. It has evolved into something much more interesting.
> 
> ...but yeah, maybe this could continue in a different thread, idk. As long as it continues I don't really care.


Personally, I felt the original topic was deeper than you thought and very professional. it has evolved into something that I am not comfortable with, mostly because I'm the OP.

So I now think the consensus is someone else should start a new thread with a different title. At the very least this thread deserves a title that is more related to the new evolved topic. Feel free to evolve the topic into any topic of choice, including trauma. Nothing wrong with that if you like discussing it with Ti/Te or whatever cognitive choice you choose

Thanks


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Aha said:


> After reading this, I can only presume that it is really hard for Ne-aux to grasp what Ne is. But my brother FiNe can give a much better explanation than that.



More concise =/= worse


----------



## Potne Theron (Nov 10, 2013)

arkigos said:


> That is a fine system and all sorts of logical and 'aesthetic' for lack of a better term. What we don't know about it is whether or not it is in any way true. So many years in the company of Ne types, I have become weary of conceptual systems that don't bother to test whether or not they are not just pretty and clever, but to test if they are in any way real. I refuse to give high fives and back pats for the prettiest system abstract.
> For me, it is a very simple prospect. It only exists if I have seen it. Not quite to the level of Descartes, sadly, but concessions must be made. It doesn't matter how good it looks on paper, show me it - let me look at its face and see it - or it is just pretty logic and lines on a computer screen.
> I say this because I think that if you were to look around, mindful of the law of large numbers (don't use small or too specific samples, any given event can be misleading but an aggregate of a large number of diverse events should normalize), and see if you can observe it. Now, see if you can duplicate it. Now, see if you can duplicate it again. Now, see if all those duplications are consistent regardless of external variables or time frame. Can you find an alternate hypothesis? Another constant that you cannot eliminate? An exception or two that you really want to sweep under the rug? Can you DISprove it somehow (is it falsifiable)? Now, try to prove yourself wrong. Write down 5 other possibilities and set about proving them. Now, go put it all out to the world and find the person who most disagrees with you. See if you can prove them right. See if someone else can do all this, removing even yourself from the equation. Drink lemonade.
> So, yes, I will say that this is a grand hypothesis. Time to get to work. I anticipate, naturally, that your observation will mirror my own. If it doesn't, that would be interesting to me. It's almost exciting, really, to be proven utterly wrong. A whole new world to explore: the other side.


Such an interesting thread from which @consciouness is likely to arise ;-)

However, as you pointed out, there is still a lot of work to do. I am wondering how C.G. Jung backed up its theory in Psychological Types. He talked about some of his patients and then elaborated his theory from it, did not he? I am not familiar with the scientific method in Psychology. Are there any papers of a “technical” nature (maybe statistical) he wrote in the background of this book?

As you talked about finding large events or aggregations of “large number of diverse events”, I thought about Clare Graves and its well documented and statistically backed up theory called “Spiral Dynamics”. I find this system extremely invigorating. Basically, it says any system, individuals, societies and civilizations go through specific stages (called levels of existence or vmemes) determined by the conditions of their existence (both external and internal). We currently know 8 of those stages: 

1st Tier: Beige (the instinctive vmeme), Purple (the Clannish vmeme), Red (the Egocentric vmeme), Blue (the Purposeful vmeme), Orange (the strategic vmeme), Green (the relativistic vmeme)

2nd Tier: Yellow (the systemic vmeme), Turquoise (the Holistic vmeme)

The interesting thing is that each level of existence implies change not only in lifestyle, but also adaptations on the cognitive level: new or different connections in the brain are developed to face those new life conditions. Let’s take an example. At level Red, we express ourselves without guilt to satisfy immediate impulsions. We may see that level of development occurring in children, but there are groups of people in our society that culminate at this level and never go further, which does not mean this stage is in any way better or worse than the next stages. It is just the more adapted stage for those people, considering their life conditions. In itself a vmeme can be lived at various health levels, pretty much in the same way of the Riso & Hudson level of development (personal observation). Organizations such as Mafia live at this stage, but healthier ancient Samurais also. At society level, we find many eastern countries such as Irak, but also Chechnya or Bolivia in other parts of the world. At civilization level, there is the Roman Empire, etc. Several websites in different languages talk about Spiral Dynamics and it is worth studying them. 

Thus, well documented theories about human development such as Spiral Dynamics and the Enneagram (in particular the Levels of developments) offer various connections to our observation that consciousness plays a great role in the way cognitive functions interact with each others, as well as with the hypothesis they have intrinsically two faces. We would value one face rather than the other for (epi)genetics reasons, for instance, until consciousness grants us with another degree of freedom, making it possible for us to use the opposite face of a specific function. What I summed up with the word “maturity”. 



StarryHawaii said:


> I don't think this thread is about trauma, though it has been mentioned ...
> I should change the title of this thread - How can I improve my Ne?
> This thread has taken an uncomfortable spin, so yeah .......... talk about something else, please


In a way, we may show you how Ne works, connecting different materials you may think at first sight not related  Let’s see where this thread goes. Give it its chance ;-)




nkavezic said:


> I've been raised in a family that largely operates on Si / Te axis. And even that's understatement. I cannot possibly stress how pronounced that part of cognition was when I was a kid. My entire childhood was all about information, data and just a little more information for a good measure. I don't even think that I met a N before I was way up in my teens. Everybody I knew, everybody that I communicated with was either Si or Se - and if I have to be honest, most of them were pretty dim so there was like zero N around me. Even today when I am around my parents I actively and consciously repress my Ne. I know it wouldn't work and I'd hit a brick wall. My parents, although very smart, are EXTREMELY practical people and have zero interest in my Ti / Ne. I learned that when I was young and I remembered that well. Being bullied by kids upon showcasing Ne certainly did not help. And the result? Extreme introversion and complete repression of my extroverted function until I was at college.
> […]However, I am curious about one thing. If cognitive functions can be observed empirically and are dependant on biological structure of the brain (which they should be!), perhaps some kind of physical trauma could in fact influence the way in which electrical stimuli is transferred and processed, therefore completely changing ones personality. I know that system probably lays on much grander foundation than the one that could be influenced by eg. brain concussion, but I wonder how in fact complex it really is. Is there any research on that? I would very much like to know. A theoretical possibility of a trauma that can completely rewire your brain is very interesting to me!


Again, applying the Spiral Dynamics system, it is all about brain adaptation to new conditions, _internal _ones this time (brain physical trauma leading to all kind of new connections, such as synesthesia (read the story for instance of Daniel Tammet)).

As to the Ti-Si loop you describe and the subsequent anxiety and social or relationship insecurities. It reminds me of the way I dealt myself with the Fi-Si loop in the relationship and social department. You wrote heavy Te and Si in your family impressed deeply your Ne management in those specific settings. It was the same for me, but this influence came from inside: a strong, tyrannical Te I had to deal with, which I inherited from the lineage collective unconscious (or repression, introjection, karma, whatever system used to justify it, which all offer different perspectives). It is still something I try to elucidate, but Ne was particularly inhibited in social interactions, while it was overused in my studies for instance. In social settings, Si unconsciously reenacted the same old affects, while Fi tried desperately to put some harmony (Fi-order) between those disparate internal objects…and could not.


----------



## mental blockstack (Dec 15, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> The problem for Ne is that it must assume that there is a box there in the first place in order to think outside of it. Ni doesn't care about boxes. There is no box.


Fine, don't buy our huge inventions made of boxes.








Could be you in there, though.

Hmm...

The box for Ni would be external, rather than internal. Reality either opens or closes its doors to Ni's world of ideas. Ne just kind of sees reality and plays with it, in a connection-based theoretical kind of way.

Si is more the "box" (compartmentalized thought). Maybe Ne bothers you more, since it spits out multiple Si boxes strung together in a way Ni often doesn't/can't follow. I think the connection can be followed, provided the Ne user knows how to adapt communication to its audience's thinking style, and makes them want to follow it.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> The thing is, I don't think Ni is any better or worse at brainstorming than Ne is. That's the thing. Ne isn't about brainstorming but Ne is about the cognitive interest to weigh all options as of equal value and worth. It's as valid to claim that my house will turn into a cheeseburger as it is valid to claim that we will terraform Mars in the future. On this forum, one of the most commonly expressed sentiments of Ne users is the idea that if I got type result X on a test, but then Y, does it mean I am also X and Y? Or even worse; "maybe I am really type Z that I never considered before but could also be possible!" Do you see, Ne weighs both results as equally valid. It cannot discriminate between where one option would be more valid or of more importance.


Wha? I have never written and would never write such a thread.......



Does that mean I'm like an ENTP and an ISFJ at the same time? 



(But more seriously, perhaps that mixup is common enough that it crosses all type barriers. And why is considering type Z even worse than thinking you could be two types?)


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

StarryHawaii said:


> Personally, I felt the original topic was deeper than you thought and very professional. it has evolved into something that I am not comfortable with, mostly because I'm the OP.
> 
> So I now think the consensus is someone else should start a new thread with a different title. At the very least this thread deserves a title that is more related to the new evolved topic. Feel free to evolve the topic into any topic of choice, including trauma. Nothing wrong with that if you like discussing it with Ti/Te or whatever cognitive choice you choose
> 
> Thanks


Is it just this topic that's not jivin with you? Or do you don't like that your original topic is expanding in general? Because if that's the case, I fear you may never be able to handle the ways of the Ne, young grasshopper.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Wha? I have never written and would never write such a thread.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm just generalizing. Not saying ALL Ne types are that bad, lol.


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Is it just this topic that's not jivin with you? Or do you don't like that your original topic is expanding in general? Because if that's the case, I fear you may never be able to handle the ways of the Ne, young grasshopper.


The topic is fine now, thanks. 

Continue on 

......


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

Maybe heres the paradox of Ne, at least those who don't implicitly experience it.

If multiple things are weighed equally, then how do you make a decision (intuitively) which one is most probable, or even the next most probable one? [doing so gives me a headache .. i don't necessarily think this is what Ne is, maybe its a stereotype]

This sounds like a paralysis like situation, where you view each decision as the same weight in your decision. 

I think Ni is just as good, or even better, because it can take in facts and just combine them; many to one style. 

I think the problem with Ne, as an Ni user, is that it just doesn't feel good when you try to approximate the style of Ne. It gives me a headache honestly, to pretend things are of equivalent value (analysis paralysis?). But only sometimes.


----------



## Potne Theron (Nov 10, 2013)

StarryHawaii said:


> Maybe heres the paradox of Ne, at least those who don't implicitly experience it.
> 
> If multiple things are weighed equally, then how do you make a decision (intuitively) which one is most probable, or even the next most probable one? [doing so gives me a headache .. i don't necessarily think this is what Ne is, maybe its a stereotype]
> 
> ...


As it was already suggested several times in earlier comments, N and S are just perceptive functions. F and T are the judging ones and they are the ones which allow us to pick up a possibility, to make a choice and take a decision. As a Fi user, I evaluate what Ne brings to me in the web of all the possibilities that may come to my mind and I choose what appears to me the most relevant.


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

Paralax2000 said:


> As it was already suggested several times in earlier comments, N and S are just perceptive functions. F and T are the judging ones and they are the ones which allow us to pick up a possibility, to make a choice and take a decision. As a Fi user, I evaluate what Ne brings to me in the web of all the possibilities that may come to my mind and I choose what appears to me the most relevant.


Yeah but you don't choose it, your unconscious mind does. You just claim you choose it, its done for you by who you are. Not that useful for people who don't have Ne


----------



## Potne Theron (Nov 10, 2013)

StarryHawaii said:


> Yeah but you don't choose it, your unconscious mind does. You just claim you choose it, its done for you by who you are. Not that useful for people who don't have Ne


All the functions have access to the unconscious (or subconscious) to some extent (though the introverted functions are more attuned to it), but they also have access to the conscious mind (or the other way round). In particular, it is the case for the rational Judging functions. When I talked about choosing a possibility I was talking about choosing consciously (with the Judging function) which intuitive product is the most appropriate to a specific context. 

As to the perceptive, extraverted intuition that brings up the material of possibilities, you may try to see if you can trigger it using your imagination on a movie you have just watched. Let’s say you have just watched Lord of the Ring. See what happens if you try to guess the continuation of the last episode. See if one or several scenarii come spontaneously to your mind, if you try to do so. Contrast it to different situations, where you know you have used your introverted intuition. Carry on observing and comparing.


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

Paralax2000 said:


> All the functions have access to the unconscious (or subconscious) to some extent (though the introverted functions are more attuned to it), but they also have access to the conscious mind (or the other way round). In particular, it is the case for the rational Judging functions. When I talked about choosing a possibility I was talking about choosing consciously (with the Judging function) which intuitive product is the most appropriate to a specific context.
> 
> As to the perceptive, extraverted intuition that brings up the material of possibilities, you may try to see if you can trigger it using your imagination on a movie you have just watched. Let’s say you have just watched Lord of the Ring. See what happens if you try to guess the continuation of the last episode. See if one or several scenarii come spontaneously to your mind, if you try to do so. Contrast it to different situations, where you know you have used your introverted intuition. Carry on observing and comparing.


Thats the problem. You need to inspire me with your experience so that I can get it with my right side, creative, seeing-the-whole side of my brain. Its best to use inspiring metaphors.

Otherwise I will just stick to my theories  

I intellectually get what you mean. I think what you mean is that you daydream way more than i do ..


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

Ne-doms daydream constantly. I just can't concentrate on a thing at all. Exams, debates, fights, conversations, etc. - every sort of events that require concentration - perhaps it is possible to hold concentration for a minute before drifting away. Every Ne-dom must learn in their life how to keep both the daydreaming part and the line that goes in real life online. 
I do not exaggerate. It is not ADD. It is just reality is not that interesting as the images in my head. The reality is just an external factor to boost my imagination. It pushes your train of thoughts forward. That is why this N called extroverted.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

It is better to think of it as opposite sides of a pole, instead of considering them separately:

Ni-Se: find patterns and relationships
Ne-Si: explore possibilities
Te-Fi: find meaning in quantified information or discrete packets of data, specialize
Fe-Ti: find meaningful relationships between objects, generalize

Also, because I am INFJ, my inner voice is an ENTP girl, which explains how I am attracted to finding the strange and mysterious (crop circles, aliens, UFO, ghosts, prehistoric beasts and dinosaurs), and their connections to life. Learning to observe MBTI has helped even more. If you are an INTJ man, then you might have an ENFP girl for an inner voice, which explains how you like to delve into details, and specialize in a particular area.

If you have Ni for primary function, you will eventually develop Se (age 55 for many people), which is when you start realizing what you already know, and experience the "moments of infinity". I have little experience with Ne-Si, though I guess it is similar, in that they observe and expand on possibilities, while pondering the past.


----------



## Aha (Mar 6, 2014)

Sparky said:


> my inner voice is an ENTP girl


----------



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

Sparky said:


> Also, because I am INFJ, my inner voice is an ENTP girl


Why


----------



## StarryHawaii (Mar 19, 2014)

Sparky said:


> It is better to think of it as opposite sides of a pole, instead of considering them separately:
> 
> Ni-Se: find patterns and relationships
> Ne-Si: explore possibilities
> ...


But thats such a long time ... Hey, when I was in high school, I wrote a speech about crop circles and how the classic explanation given to them (made by those people with the planks) were wrong. Crop circles are pretty neat. Artistic and geometric at the same time.


----------

