# Conceptual Models



## SadLuckDame (Dec 30, 2010)

amnorvend said:


> I really like this example. Let me tweak it a bit though. I think a dialogue makes it more interesting. Plus, I'd tweak the Si/Ne examples a bit.
> 
> This is transcribed from too many conversations with Se/Ni people.
> 
> ...


Wait, you forgot to let NE end the conversation, or at least I want NE to end it...
*Ne*- That round peg is just like my Aunt Hilda's poodle dog, when it gets it's top poof.

And I found the discussion thus far to be opening doorways. 
Thank you.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

SadLuckDame said:


> Wait, you forgot to let NE end the conversation, or at least I want NE to end it...
> *Ne*- That round peg is just like my Aunt Hilda's poodle dog, when it gets it's top poof.


That would in fact be daydreaming Si when it comes back, drawing back upon the model of Aunt Hilda's poodle dog and comparing the new information about the peg to the dog.

I can't believe I just said that.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Owfin said:


> That would in fact be daydreaming Si when it comes back, drawing back upon the model of Aunt Hilda's poodle dog and comparing the new information about the peg to the dog.
> 
> I can't believe I just said that.


Poodles are approximately pegs, just like cows are approximately spheres!

Which brings us back to models!! Bam, my Ne is on a roll.


----------



## SadLuckDame (Dec 30, 2010)

Which one was it that decided the peg could easily curly-cue the top of Aunt Hilda's poodle dog's head
with the rounded peg?


----------



## SadLuckDame (Dec 30, 2010)

It won't let me edit to add.
Above was to mean~was it Si instead of Ne?


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

SadLuckDame said:


> It won't let me edit to add.
> Above was to mean~was it Si instead of Ne?


Hmm, well that "could" makes it sound like... Si-Ne! So we are both right!


----------



## PurpleTree (Nov 3, 2010)

Very interesting reading going through here.



Spades said:


> I was actually going to mention something like this in my OP, but wanted to see what people would come up with first. I've read about this in two separate places now and I'm fairly confident of its validity. I'll try to explain it in my own words here:
> 
> There are two major ways of *Perceiving* the world: *Se-Ni* (or Ni-Se) and *Si-Ne* (or Ne-Si).
> 
> ...


My conceptual model is doing crazy things right now.












amnorvend said:


> I really like this example. Let me tweak it a bit though. I think a dialogue makes it more interesting. Plus, I'd tweak the Si/Ne examples a bit.
> 
> This is transcribed from too many conversations with Se/Ni people.
> 
> ...


I actually laughed, and I haven't even started my morning coffee. _Touche._
I didn't _know _that was going to happen.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

zynthaxx said:


> I like what you guys are doing here. Let's see how this fits:
> I didn't learn mathematics properly until the school curriculum started having the physics and the maths courses follow each other, so that we got the tools for solving our physics problems in maths class. Suddenly everything began making perfect sense.
> Discuss.


I'm tempted to say "That's Ni, that's Ni!!" but it could also be Se requiring specific applications to theory. Depends on _why_ it clicked for you. Was it the application, or was it being able to see the big picture? For me, I have this problem with most detail-based courses I take: I don't understand any of it, until part-way through the course (or sometimes all the way at the end when studying for finals...) where I suddenly see how it all connects, and then it's super easy and I can solve problems I haven't seen before.



SadLuckDame said:


> It won't let me edit to add.
> Above was to mean~was it Si instead of Ne?


Here's more info on the editing issue.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

amnorvend said:


> *Se* - Hey guys, I just found a round peg!
> *Ni* - Weird. I just knew Se was going to run into a round peg today. I don't know how I knew though.
> [snip]


Amusing, but I'd like to add that Ni isn't a magical "I just knew it" function. The only Ni-like part was this:


> *Ni* - I wonder why Si always questions everything Se says. He must have it out for Se.


(I'm not intentionally trying to ruin the fun.)


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Paradigm said:


> Amusing, but I'd like to add that Ni isn't a magical "I just knew it" function. The only Ni-like part was this:
> 
> (I'm not intentionally trying to ruin the fun.)


I was thinking of pointing out some of the inaccuracies, but decided it was just humorous instead. For a non-Ni user, it probably does seem psychic. People have complimented my predictive ability before, and it strokes my Fi nicely =P It's difficult to separate the perceiving and judging functions, so most of the little quotes show some sort of F or T leaning.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

Spades said:


> I was thinking of pointing out some of the inaccuracies, but decided it was just humorous instead. For a non-Ni user, it probably does seem psychic. People have complimented my predictive ability before, and it strokes my Fi nicely =P It's difficult to separate the perceiving and judging functions, so most of the little quotes show some sort of F or T leaning.


 I understand that. Normally, I'd rarely/never post about it, but I figured that since I was in this thread already I may as well. :tongue:


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Paradigm said:


> Amusing, but I'd like to add that Ni isn't a magical "I just knew it" function. The only Ni-like part was this:
> 
> 
> (I'm not intentionally trying to ruin the fun.)


I'm aware that it's inaccurate. Ni's always the function I have the most difficulty describing. Most likely, it's due to my Se trickster poking fun at my Ni grumpy old man. That's probably better than if I let my Ni senex color it. It would probably be full of lines like this:

*Ni* - Kids these days think they know everything! They see something round and automatically assume it's a peg.

At any rate, since I've already de-railed this thread, I'll try actually _contributing_. I suspect that the conceptual models the functions would come up with would look something like this:

*Se* - Extraverted sensates don't get "concepts", nor do they get "models" (at least not the kind we're talking about :happy: ). Put the two together, and you've got one annoyed sensate!
*Si* - Si types get _statistical_ models. I'm not sure why they seem to be a bit more at home with theoretical models than Se types seem to be, but they just are in my anecdotal experience.
*Ne* - This isn't the best example, but Ne's approach to modeling things is like putting a puzzle together. It's good at seeing how the pieces can fit together, and what the best possible fit is.
*Ni* - ...while Ni seems to be best at the exact opposite: taking the puzzle apart and putting it back in the box so it can be neatly pulled out again later when Ne has already forgotten about it.
*Te* - I think Te types understand organizational models pretty well.
*Ti* - Ti types are good with _mathematical_ models that show relationships between variables.
*Fe* - Fe types are often good at modeling what makes the most people happy.
*Fi* - ...while us Fi types tend to be good at modeling what makes _us_ happy.


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

zynthaxx said:


> I like what you guys are doing here. Let's see how this fits:
> I didn't learn mathematics properly until the school curriculum started having the physics and the maths courses follow each other, so that we got the tools for solving our physics problems in maths class. Suddenly everything began making perfect sense.
> Discuss.


I realized I never came back and responded to this. When things all started making sense is (at least for me) when Ni starts linking up the Se data correctly. Suddenly I know how individual pieces work together, and I can see how each idea fits into the pattern. On the one hand, being able to see and experience the math put to practical use can solidify what each math equation means, but it also puts in in a broader spectrum of understanding. For example, every one knows what it is actually like to throw a ball up and catch it, but you can study it with physics and explain why it acts the way it acts in terms of some broader rules. Then you can go back and watch a ball and see those rules in play. And you can also go and study the abstraction of a ball being thrown up in the air "in purity" (ie the quadratic equation) and have a sense of what physical reality correlates with that abstraction. 

So Ni is looking at the connections and dynamics of a situation. Through Se you can be is aware of the pieces of reality that make up the web, but Ni is more interested in how the pieces move and interact together and what forces or causes changes to ripple through a system the way they do. It's subjective in that it is looking at what internal states (in an abstract sense) the objects have that cause them to be affected the way they are. Se on the other hand is looking at the pieces that make up the web and seeing what effect can be created on them or what effect is created by one object on another or on oneself. You can't really separate them though because you need both to have a whole picture.


----------

