# Ne misconception (??)



## littledazed (Jul 19, 2012)

It's just something I noticed and I'm kind of jotting it down so it may be way off



I notice a lot of Ne-users describing Ne as seeing dots/nodes and being able to _connect them easily

_but I think this 'connecting' part is Ti processing Ne. So not essentially Ne

Being an Fi-Ne user, I may see a lot of dots but they don't connect as easily for me, at least not without a bit of an effort. My thoughts come off in tangents and I may have a lot of ideas by the end of a brainstorming session but nothing really.. insightful? 



I wish I could word this better lol. then again it's just a musing. thoughts? a/d?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Perception is irrational because it's given, it's not a result of conscious thought which is rational. So sometimes it will be Ne 'connecting the dots' and sometimes Ti/Fi will.


----------



## Deja Vu (Dec 26, 2009)

no function works in a vacuum, and function order will bias the descriptors of those who relay the experience of extroverted intuition as well. a Ne primary experience may be clear, yet not as distinct as a Ne teritary's understanding of the function since the process isn't as associated with the person's ego. I suggest one Err on the side of caution and skepticism when getting responses. 

however, i'd say the internal function often note the dots, while the external functions make connection (Ne) or recognize (Se) the nodes. Ne is about ideas, implications, abstractions and will extrapolate subjects for those internal functions to dissect, signify and eliminate. as an auxillary function, i'd assume the process is more conscious than it is for me or other primary extroverted intuits. remember, your internal primary rational function is in lead and colors your experience of these connections, a long with (to a lesser extent) Si.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

littledazed said:


> It's just something I noticed and I'm kind of jotting it down so it may be way off
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The dots you connect are simply different kinds of dots. Fi tends to connect dots related to Fi values and people, as well as personal ideas and impressions. An example I have a connection that I think is more Fi-tinted is my understanding of authenticity. It's more value-based on what I think authenticity is and my impression is that NeFi types tend to understand this idea fairly well.

Also, NeTi doesn't mean you will always come up with thoughts that connect  You have no idea how many ideas I discard daily out of being useless and probably do so quite unconsciously. But I will also be able to come up with completely no-nonsense connections such as calling my cat poppyhead because I thought of a specific X-Files episode where Scully calls Mulder poppyhead. 

Ne connections don't have to make sense. That's why you need a Ji function to analyze which ones are useful and which ones aren't.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

littledazed said:


> It's just something I noticed and I'm kind of jotting it down so it may be way off
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the whole connecting the dots thing is overblown and a misunderstanding of intuition. True intuition would connect dots where there are none apparent in many cases. What a lot of people call 'connecting the dots' is just them using logic (Thinking).


----------



## CaptainWayward (Jun 8, 2012)

I think with Ne a perceived object will almost always bring up other objects connected to it; however, I'd agree that Ti is almost always present unless some sort of drug is involved, the person is asleep, or involved in some sort of trance state.

I assume Ti will always involve Ne.

One determination that appears exclusive to the perceiving function is the awareness of the passage of time. In this case, trying to rationalize the passage of time without some sort of device, with a known time interval, is impossible. In some form I would assume this is also true with judging distances. *Maybe even the use of language has a similar effect; feeling the nuisance of a situation and being given a specific word to describe it through intuition.*

I also agree with lightliquid, Ne is essentially a spray n' pray method of making connection, but I would say overtime this intuitive sense can become more refined with practice(with application of the rational function) or even through unconscious means as we learn and experience more.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> I think the whole connecting the dots thing is overblown and a misunderstanding of intuition. True intuition would connect dots where there are none apparent in many cases. What a lot of people call 'connecting the dots' is just them using logic (Thinking).


I don't think it has to be thinking. I think it just involves a J function in general in order to validate the intuitive data. And I personally think it's a false conception to say that functions exist in a vacuum of one another. I think that if you are an intuitive type, you will always connect intuitive dots with your J function. How often and how eager you are to do this however depends on whether you are a P dom or a J dom type. 

But connecting the dots requires both intuition and a judging function. A judging function cannot connect something if there's no data to connect to begin with. This is one of the misconceptions I've seen floating around regarding dominant judgers being quick too judge as if we can operate on no data at all.


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I don't think it has to be thinking. I think it just involves a J function in general in order to validate the intuitive data. And I personally think it's a false conception to say that functions exist in a vacuum of one another. I think that if you are an intuitive type, you will always connect intuitive dots with your J function. How often and how eager you are to do this however depends on whether you are a P dom or a J dom type.
> 
> But connecting the dots requires both intuition and a judging function. A judging function cannot connect something if there's no data to connect to begin with. This is one of the misconceptions I've seen floating around regarding dominant judgers being quick too judge as if we can operate on no data at all.


Would you say the secondary function is always at the service of the dominant? Like a Ti dominant's Ti says to its Se or Ne, "I need some more data for this. Go get it." And if so, do IxxP types always look outward for more information before they look inward? For dominant judgers, such as INTJs, Ni would tell Te, "Here, make yourself useful and do something with this."

Is Ne like a blurring filter? Like when you squint and a lines of text become more lines and less text? Does Si then compare it to other things Ne has observed, or does Si observe its own things?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> Would you say the secondary function is always at the service of the dominant?


Yes, in a way.


> Like a Ti dominant's Ti says to its Se or Ne, "I need some more data for this. Go get it." And if so, do IxxP types always look outward for more information before they look inward? For dominant judgers, such as INTJs, Ni would tell Te, "Here, make yourself useful and do something with this."


When the IxxP feels she requires more data, yes.


> Is Ne like a blurring filter? Like when you squint and a lines of text become more lines and less text? Does Si then compare it to other things Ne has observed, or does Si observe its own things?


I don't understand this analogy, it's probably too visual for me. Can you rephrase it?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> I think the whole connecting the dots thing is overblown and a misunderstanding of intuition. True intuition would connect dots where there are none apparent in many cases. What a lot of people call 'connecting the dots' is just them using logic (Thinking).


I think you might be describing intuition from only an Ni perspective there. Also, Jung said intuition can _appear_ as thinking, feeling and sensation, although it's not so.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I think you might be describing intuition from only an Ni perspective there. Also, Jung said intuition can _appear_ as thinking, feeling and sensation, although it's not so.


I agree. like when Jungyes thought what I described as Ne living-in-the-moment appeared more Si and while there is an Si-aspect to it, I don't think it's ultimately Si. It's very much being one with Ne and that is hard to explain for someone who has a preference for introverted perception I suppose. 

It's just like you just see everything at once and it's a fantastic feeling, essentially. The scope is too wide to be Si.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Aren't the Perceiving functions just used to collect information? So, Ne wouldn't connect things exactly. You're right it would be Ti.

I think Se and Ne are very similar in the way they gather information - they look at what's there, but Ne tends to end up putting it through a different filter to Se. With Se, it takes exactly what's there, and does it incredibly well. Ne takes the idea of what's there and alters it into their own perception i.e. and Se user and an Ne user see a door handle. The Se user, noticing that it's well-worn, thinks "this door handle is used often", whereas Ne looks at it and thinks "that door handle looks like a face" or something like that.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> I think the whole connecting the dots thing is overblown and a misunderstanding of intuition. True intuition would connect dots where there are none apparent in many cases. What a lot of people call 'connecting the dots' is just them using logic (Thinking).


Agreed. Dominant intuition is often the kind of intuition that can almost create something from nothing, especially Ni, the ontological intuition. I've actually ended up doing this before on tests when interpreting paintings and their meanings, for instance: instead of describing any of the details, I have just come up with meanings for why they are the way they are (with an implied summary of details behind my symbolic intuition that was totally inaccessible to the grader). I totally lost points on that one, LOL (even though it could not be proven wrong). Describing the details of artworks tends to annoy the crap out of me, because I'm thinking "uh, the details are right in front of your eyes, who cares" (yeah, my subjective penchant for sensation is like absolute zero, unless perhaps I love the subject of sensation enough, which is often very very rare).


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I don't understand this analogy, it's probably too visual for me. Can you rephrase it?


lol, sorry. Yes. I was meaning if Ne more saw lines of text as actual lines and not the individual letters that make it up. Like it would rather look at it unfocused to see the shape the text seemed to make.

Like Se might see this:

In*divid*uals
like
s*ing*ing
for
my
*e*ar

as some weird way of arranging words and would focus on the bold letters, whereas Ne might see that it seems to form a capital F instead. Is this right?



laurie17 said:


> Aren't the Perceiving functions just used to collect information? So, Ne wouldn't connect things exactly. You're right it would be Ti.
> 
> I think Se and Ne are very similar in the way they gather information - they look at what's there, but Ne tends to end up putting it through a different filter to Se. With Se, it takes exactly what's there, and does it incredibly well. Ne takes the idea of what's there and alters it into their own perception i.e. and Se user and an Ne user see a door handle. The Se user, noticing that it's well-worn, thinks "this door handle is used often", whereas Ne looks at it and thinks "that door handle looks like a face" or something like that.


Hmm, I would think Si would see it as a face because it would be comparing the pattern Ne brought in against similar patterns Ne brought in in the past and find a similarity.

I think Se just sees things. There's a curved metal thing. It has worn marks on it. Ti would take that and say, "It is well-worn, it must be used a lot." Ni might jump in and say, "Why is *this* door used a lot?"

I would think Ne seeing the door handle would see a curved metal thing and imagine other ways it could be attached or other things that could be connected onto it. Imagine it without the door as a mug handle or something. I'm not really sure how Ne is. I'm grasping at straws.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> lol, sorry. Yes. I was meaning if Ne more saw lines of text as actual lines and not the individual letters that make it up. Like it would rather look at it unfocused to see the shape the text seemed to make.
> 
> Like Se might see this:
> 
> ...


I honestly don't understand the connection you're describing as Ne.


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I honestly don't understand the connection you're describing as Ne.


Ne sees the big picture and Se sees the details, mainly. I read an article that showed this image:


TTTTTTTTT T T T T T TTTTTTTTTT

It said that S types would look closer and mention the many Ts, whereas N types usually back away, vulnerable to the number of Ts (details), and point out that it is an H.

I'm asking if this is accurate and if so, hoping to expand on it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> Ne sees the big picture and Se sees the details, mainly. I read an article that showed this image:
> 
> 
> TTTTTTTTT T T T T T TTTTTTTTTT
> ...


I think basic human pattern finding would suggest every person would probably see it like an H but no, I didn't see an H, I saw it as well... a T. On the side. It just really depends on where you put your eye focus.


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I think basic human pattern finding would suggest every person would probably see it like an H but no, I didn't see an H, I saw it as well... a T. On the side. It just really depends on where you put your eye focus.


Then what would you describe as Ne types seeing patterns in the external world? How is it for you?


----------



## Fallen Nocturne (May 13, 2012)

As far as the whole "dot to dot" analogy goes, I think the pattern recognition thing describes Ni a bit more than Ne. I can't help but think Ne would go ahead and connect ALL of the dots; leaving a massive (albeit pretty awesome) web on the page rather than a defined shape.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

The mere act of connecting something is the most important ability of intuition, isn't it? When intuition gives you a set of information, that wasn't perceived directly through senses and not constructed by conscious thoughts, it must be connected by intuition itself.

Otherwise, if we say thinking is directly included in intuition so that it can connect anything, we could just call intuition "uncounscious thinking that varies sense perception". The only remaining intuitive feature would be the "uncounscious way" the other functions can get into.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

Elaminopy said:


> Ne sees the big picture and Se sees the details, mainly. I read an article that showed this image:
> 
> 
> TTTTTTTTT T T T T T TTTTTTTTTT
> ...



I saw the H before I sat that it was made up of individual Ts. I think this is more a matter of the different between Ne/Se and Ni/Si than just intuitives versus sensors. I think Se can be a big-picture function, too, though; when I look at at image, I see the bigger details: a house, a woman, a whatever. Then, when I scrutinize it further, I start noticing the individual pieces and start wondering what they mean. For example, a couple of months ago, I was at an art museum in Sacramento, which has a large collection of early American art. One of the paintings was a landscape--the Rockies. I saw the mountains, I saw the trees closer in the foreground, and only when I really analyzed the picture did I realize that there was a small human figure standing in the shadow of it all--representing, I guess, the smallness of humankind in relation to nature (well, this is kind of obvious symbolism, I guess; I wish I had a link to an image to show you). But going back to my original point, both Pe functions are about the "bigger picture" (I hate that term); Ni and Si are of course about subjective impressions. I think if I'd been a strongly Si type, I would have seen the picture I just mentioned in terms of what it meant to me based on experiences I'd had.


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

If Ne were a painting it would look like this










or this










for the more advanced Ne users


----------



## Pucca (Jun 13, 2012)

laurie17 said:


> Aren't the Perceiving functions just used to collect information? So, Ne wouldn't connect things exactly.


Exactly.
In my world, Ne does not dot-to-dot connect anything. It's pure ABSORPTION. It takes in ALL the information and then my mind narrows down and strings out whatever associations it wishes from there. It's hardly conscious. It just is. 

Now, if I must focus upon something for specific information, that is totally different because it engages more functions than just Ne. /twocents


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

Pete The Lich said:


> If Ne were a painting it would look like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I were to show a glimpse of what thought patterns look like in my mind, I would choose that first one. It's almost exactly what I picture in my head. That's wild.


----------



## Pete The Lich (May 16, 2011)

Id like to stress how this picture is to be interpreted











The rays are where the information is originating from and all the other lines are Ne making crazy associations/modifications


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

Pete The Lich said:


> Id like to stress how this picture is to be interpreted
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's perfect. I am so amazed, it's like I'm looking at my thought process! Did you create this?

I know it looks like a jumbled mess, but I completely make sense of it. I think for me, Si helps me zero in on specific line of thought, while Te helps me order it. I could be wrong though.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Elaminopy said:


> lol, sorry. Yes. I was meaning if Ne more saw lines of text as actual lines and not the individual letters that make it up. Like it would rather look at it unfocused to see the shape the text seemed to make.
> 
> Like Se might see this:
> 
> ...


I was too busy searching for where you were going with that word formation and the bolding of the letters and how it would connect to the next direction of this conversation to notice that the words form an F. 

That's real Ne>Se for you.


----------

