Socionics Personals
North America
Western Europe
Middle East
Join now!

Ni Function Question
by Adomas

As you already know, the Socionics theory was developed mainly by the Lithuanian researcher Aushra Augustinavichute [1]. The name socionics is derived from the word "society", since Augustinavichute believed that each personality type has a distinct purpose in society, which can be described and explained by socionics ...
Bookmark and Share

Your Comments: 1+ 3+
C1 Hey, I think you raise some excellent points. A lot of socionics articles and type descriptions are very vague, and seem to lack coherent, logical structure; hence Ne being described as, essentially, everything-to-do-with-ideas*, whereas Ni is relegated to the passage of time. I believe to be "the EXPRESSION and COMMUNICATION of ideas*", whereas is more the "OBSERVATION and CONTEMPLATION of ideas*". It should be noted that judgers contemplate too; when I use the word "contemplate", I mean "generate and consider ideas* and possibilities related to x". Anyways, with being focused on internal statics of OBJECTS (reality in the EXTERNAL world) I believe it manifests as a desire to communicate and describe ideas* (or, to be more theoretically precise, the internal nature of "things"). Definitions of concepts; philosophy would be a good example, as it pertains to objectively representing ideas* and making them fully understandable (an example pertaining more to ENFps would be psychology). , however, seems to be more associated with patient reflection - NOT coming to a conclusion when used by itself, as it is a perceiving function - associated with generating and perceiving possible outcomes within the realm of one's own mind and understanding**. As an introverted function, it doesn't seek to express its perceptions (both according to theory and practice) or make them more easily understood. In fact, they depend on others to generate the same reflections within their own minds and abhor having to explain themselves frequently. I've read that Intuition is DEDUCTIVE (learns patterns and ideas* first, then generates and understands details based on how closely they relate to those patterns/ideas*), whereas Sensation is INDUCTIVE (observes details first, and generates patterns based on how closely they adhere to observed details), and I think that distinction carries a lot of value. As far as "idea* realization" goes, I think that's a vague term that has a lot of different applications Intuitive could communicate its ideas* to a Sensate, who would be more apt to "realize" the ideas* as the Sensate is more familiar and confident with details and the outcome they are likely to generate (as they reason FROM details TO generalities; whereas the Intuitive would hold the vision and generate possible details based on that vision). Or, Te could help an INTp realize its ideas* in the sense that using Te would collect and organize data for consideration by the Ni-base, perhaps. As a third possibility, Intuition may help "realize" its own ideas* (with help from other functions) as it would generate the idea* and then "hold" the idea* like a torch to guide its way to realization. Unfortunately, "idea* realization" could have many applications and can't really be attributed to any particular function as well as it could be attributed to different combinations ("cocktails", if you will) of functions. Regarding INTj (LII); the difference between MBTI and Socionics is that MBTI makes Perceiving/Judging distinction based on whichever is objective in the personality type; put more simply, if you are an Introvert with Extraverted Perception, you are a Myers-Briggs "P" (despite the fact that your base function is a Judging function, either Fi or Ti ). The opposite is true for Socionics: your base function determines whether you are "p" or "j". The lowercase letter is used in Western Socionics to distinguish itself from MBTI- the two are commonly confused by psychologically-oriented web surfers. The distinction is theoretical, not practical. FYI, for anyone unfamiliarized: INTP (Myers-Briggs designation) = [Li][Ne] = LII = INTj (Socionics designation) INTJ (Myers-Briggs designation) = [Te] = ILI = INTp (Socionics designation) A subtle but important distinction. As far as , , and go I mentioned above, there are different "cocktails" of functions. INTps, for example, are strong in (according to Model A) despite the fact that it is not a part of their conscious psyche (it's not part of the "mental" track). Certainly, LIIs DO generate ideas* ...but they are decidedly NOT pertaining to possible outcomes! They are synthesized, inherited logical rules ...often without any basis on previous, personal experience ...that lead to further conclusions, like a rule created from several rules such as a = b, and b = c, therefore a = c. Of course, life is rarely as simple as a = b. It tends to be more like a*b/12base57-xy over yz/cb*23, etc. (I have a friend who's LII, and he drives me crazy in this regard! It drives me even crazier that he's often right!) But personal bias aside, LIIs generate ideas*: predictive, mentally-held models of reality from which outcomes are inferred. This is different, in some ways, from the "idea* generation" of ILIs (and LIEs, who have in their psyche) which pertains more to possible outcomes of events and choosing the most practical, efficient or reliable option based on those imagined outcomes. Tricky stuff! Of course, all of my comments pertain to verbalizing patterns, functions and models ...which I have argued is Ne (possibly combined with Ti ). To me, it's important to communicate and understand a concept verbally before inferring further conclusion ...maybe that's not at all; maybe it's , or even a learning style which has nothing to do with Socionics at all! I guess my point is that it's important to express all of your ideas, review which ideas are correct, and then allow for further revision when exposed to new information [:)] *"ideas" is a word commonly used in personality type theory, both MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) and Socionics, to refer to patterns and generalities of an abstract nature. They are mentally-based models of reality from which outcomes are inferred. It should definitely be noted that the word "ideas" OUTSIDE of personality type theory pertains to an intuitive (as opposed to iNtuitive, ) collaboration of thought processes culminating in a thought or conclusion of some kind. These ideas, as they are commonly referred to, are actually generated by ANY base function as a result of that function's automatic activity in one's psyche, and are not specifically or . In short: "iNtuitive ideas", as referred to in personality type, are NOT the same as "intuitive ideas" as referred to in general conversation. Think of the difference between having an idea: "I have an idea of how to deal with this" and being taught an idea "My teacher taught me the idea that philosophy can be used to understand the world". Jungian iNtuition ([Ne],[Ni]) is not magic. **How this related to theory (internal dynamics of fields) is, admittedly, beyond me at this point ...the best I can come up with is that the fields are somehow linked to "possibilities" in a similar way to Si 's external dynamics of fields being linked to "comfort" ...i.e. is responsible for personal assessment of possibilities - within a situation, hence the "dynamic". But that's at best an educated guess.) -- Jay Bop
C2 Oh, I'd also like to direct a message to the Admin: I know you provide theory here on your website, making SPECIFIC MENTION of the difference between MBTI "P & J" vs. Socionic "p & j" ...however, it seems that this website is too highly discussion-oriented. It's important to talk things through to further your own understanding, but it's also important to understand what you're talking about before you say it - especially when you're generating conclusions! - as the new information provided by such discussions can be misinterpreted as "superior understanding" to one's own. What I mean is that someone could come onto the forum or read an article, read that (as a wild example) Fi is the ability to feel, and wonder or believe they have misunderstood Socionic theory. One would hope that a) authors only write about what they know, b) readers remain skeptical of new information and seek to consider it within the realm of other information before coming to their own conclusions, c) that EVERYONE reads the theory and is familiar with the language before writing OR reading about specific socionic terms and that d) for lack of better words ...idiocy isn't contagious. However, when a, b, c AND d have to be true at all times to guarantee effective communication of Socionics (which is the main purpose of this website, is it not?), then there would seem to be ample opportunity for mistakes to be made. I realize that Admin, being human, is limited by time, reality, money and lifestyle ...and that there are very few authorities on Socionics in North America, let alone the world ...however, a different structure emphasizing YOUR articles before forum discussion would be helpful, more like the way Rick's Socionics website was set up (before he abandoned it and disappeared). JUST a critical thought from someone on one side of the fence. -- Jay B
Page 1 2
Would you like to add anything?
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)

Name: (leave blank for "Anonymous")