Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #41  
Old 28/04/2008, 01:35 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

Though we all can get emotional in a heated debate, personal attacks will not be tolerated.

If someone's posts annoy you, it doesn't automatically mean they annoy everyone. Use Ignore function as a last resort.

Keep it civilised.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 28/04/2008, 04:28 PM
pandapanda's Avatar
pandapanda pandapanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 194
Default

Vibration, you obviously know how to irritate ISTps. What I want to know is - why? Is it boredom? I get that, too - but as much as I think 'grrrr...ISTjs' sometimes, I wouldn't attack someone who did no harm to me based on something they said.

Maybe you don't know how upsetting glib statements about people's intelligence are to (I'm guessing) , but they annoy even when it's not directed at them.

As for the topic: I have a load of ideas about Ni and Ne based on what epic calls intuitive fluff. I find it interesting that people say that Ni makes predictions based on what can be seen. A lot of the Ni dominant people I know tend to be more into very abstract subjects than Ne dominant people - or Ni are less interested in applying their ideas. I mean that's just anecodotal evidence and my own people watching, so I guess it's not worth that much, except to myself.

I'm wondering how this works out: they make predictions based on what they see - I'm wondering how this jives with them appearing more dreamy (to me) than Ne types. Maybe it's because prediction is less investigative than discovery of causation? I don't mean to be biased towards Ne, or say that it's better because it's my dominant function. I just wish I understood Ni better. Concise answers are good - so are examples and stories...I seem to be the only 'F' in this discussion. Jung and Kant were 'T' types, and while I can intuitively follow their ideas, I wish they'd write differently!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 28/04/2008, 06:55 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandapanda View Post
As for the topic: I have a load of ideas about Ni and Ne based on what epic calls intuitive fluff. I find it interesting that people say that Ni makes predictions based on what can be seen. A lot of the Ni dominant people I know tend to be more into very abstract subjects than Ne dominant people - or Ni are less interested in applying their ideas. I mean that's just anecodotal evidence and my own people watching, so I guess it's not worth that much, except to myself.
I think this sounds really interesting, more please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandapanda
I'm wondering how this works out: they make predictions based on what they see - I'm wondering how this jives with them appearing more dreamy (to me) than Ne types. Maybe it's because prediction is less investigative than discovery of causation? I don't mean to be biased towards Ne, or say that it's better because it's my dominant function. I just wish I understood Ni better. Concise answers are good - so are examples and stories...I seem to be the only 'F' in this discussion.
In regards to Ne and Ni, I can touch base on a few things with them, but as they are not my functions of preference (although I love Ne), I can only go on a more subjective view point, how perhaps they are interpreted by me, and of course, conversation where people are taking their Ne and Ni in action.

I think that Ne looks for connections, whereas Ni looks for predictions.

For example, a classic example I beleive is as Isaac Newton said 'why does the apple fall and the moon rotate the earth?' The connection here - between two (apparently) dissociated things - is gravity. The Ne looks for connections between things. (Ne)

Ni would predict when the apple falls, what rate the apple falls, when the next one would fall, predict how frequently have they fallen.

For more examples, albeit still a little abstract, in terms of jobs, I think Ni is good in the stockmarket and what have you - predicting stocks and shares fluctuations and trends. Infact I'd bet ENTj and INTp is the most common type in the stockmarket. (HEY...They're in the Gamma Quadra... the business industrialists ... no coincidence then?)

In regards to your other point, about Ni seeming more dreamy to you, that could be explained within the constuct of Ni being your 7th function, which (according to the theory) means that although you are strong in it, you don't value it. So therefore you can do it, but find it a bit, from a personal point of view .. a bit pointless, I guess?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandapanda
I just wish I understood Ni better. Concise answers are good - so are examples and stories...I seem to be the only 'F' in this discussion. Jung and Kant were 'T' types, and while I can intuitively follow their ideas, I wish they'd write differently!
Yes, I think that with you being an F type, your Ne will filter through into looking at new possibilites with people in mind, and ENTp will filter through into looking at inanimate sytems.

Although I'd be reluctant to say the two types can't both .. Do you think it's possible an ENFp would go into research with the idea of understanding quantum mechanics because of the benefits it could bring to people, whereas the ENTp would go in with the idea of helping understand quantum mechanics primarily on the basis of understanding the (it's) system (ie without necessarily the people in mind)
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 28/04/2008, 07:00 PM
hkkmr's Avatar
hkkmr hkkmr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandapanda View Post
As for the topic: I have a load of ideas about Ni and Ne based on what epic calls intuitive fluff. I find it interesting that people say that Ni makes predictions based on what can be seen. A lot of the Ni dominant people I know tend to be more into very abstract subjects than Ne dominant people - or Ni are less interested in applying their ideas. I mean that's just anecodotal evidence and my own people watching, so I guess it's not worth that much, except to myself.

I'm wondering how this works out: they make predictions based on what they see - I'm wondering how this jives with them appearing more dreamy (to me) than Ne types. Maybe it's because prediction is less investigative than discovery of causation? I don't mean to be biased towards Ne, or say that it's better because it's my dominant function. I just wish I understood Ni better. Concise answers are good - so are examples and stories...I seem to be the only 'F' in this discussion. Jung and Kant were 'T' types, and while I can intuitively follow their ideas, I wish they'd write differently!
Could you ask your question again, concisely?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 28/04/2008, 07:04 PM
pandapanda's Avatar
pandapanda pandapanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
Could you ask your question again, concisely?
It's kind of two related questions:

How does the Ni predictive function work? and
How does this fit in with my observation of Ni dominant people being more into pure abstractions than Ne dominant people, especially since their predictive ability deals with what they can see?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 29/04/2008, 08:10 PM
hkkmr's Avatar
hkkmr hkkmr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandapanda View Post
It's kind of two related questions:

How does the Ni predictive function work? and
How does this fit in with my observation of Ni dominant people being more into pure abstractions than Ne dominant people, especially since their predictive ability deals with what they can see?
The answer to the first question. Probability is possibility over time.

I'm not sure what you mean by pure abstraction, because pure abstraction would imply that it is unconnected with reality and thus.. pure imagination? Then again just because you can see something, doesn't mean it's real.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 29/04/2008, 09:21 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

Haha, pandapanda's avatar is very ENFp indeed, have seen ENFps looking like this before
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 29/04/2008, 11:51 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
Haha, pandapanda's avatar is very ENFp indeed, have seen ENFps looking like this before
I totally agree. I have had a few ENFp's around. And I thought the exact same thing. They're pretty. And pretty awesome.

Whats your take on all this Ni and Ne stuff Sergie?

As an S, I sometimes feel my say empirical data is not as useful round these parts, yet I think it's useful, if not essential, for hitting the nail on the head (meaning not just as just teh mechanic)
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 30/04/2008, 12:37 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

One day I will sit down and write everything, it is all so simple yet so complicated...
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 30/04/2008, 12:50 AM
hkkmr's Avatar
hkkmr hkkmr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 95
Default

I want to note something.

Prediction can deal with past, present or future.
One can predict the past and how that got us here, one can predict the present situation and one can predict what will occur in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 30/04/2008, 01:53 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
I want to note something.

Prediction can deal with past, present or future.
One can predict the past and how that got us here, one can predict the present situation and one can predict what will occur in the future.
It could make a nice story for a sci-fi flick, heh, but you cannot 'predict' the past by the definition of 'predict', which is - to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 30/04/2008, 02:45 AM
hkkmr's Avatar
hkkmr hkkmr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
It could make a nice story for a sci-fi flick, heh, but you cannot 'predict' the past by the definition of 'predict', which is - to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell
I know, I sort of bastardized the word a bit.. for my own uses... co-opt a word for it.

But something is also in the future relative to the point in the past that it began.

Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 30/04/2008, 06:18 AM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
It could make a nice story for a sci-fi flick, heh, but you cannot 'predict' the past by the definition of 'predict', which is - to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell
So I have a question; Imagine you are scheduled to watch a home movie of mine filmed seven years ago. You have never seen it before. You are asked to predict what will occur on the video before viewing it. Once you view the video your prediction will be tested.

I disagree that, according to you definition, one could not predict/prophesy/foretell the past. Maybe it might be better to make the claim that you cannot predict/prophesy/foretell the past without simultaneously foretelling the future?

So tell me what happens/happened seven years ago, on this home movie that I am thinking of?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 30/04/2008, 09:18 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

Don't go all WMWK on me If you haven't watched the move before, the act of watching lies in the future for you, despite the fact that the move was released ages ago, therefore you can use word predict. One man's past is another man's future... Muahahaha!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 30/04/2008, 09:57 AM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
Don't go all WMWK on me If you haven't watched the move before, the act of watching lies in the future for you, despite the fact that the move was released ages ago, therefore you can use word predict. One man's past is another man's future... Muahahaha!

Guessing what will occur in a pre-recorded event is predicting the past. I don't know what WMWK has to do with that.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 30/04/2008, 10:12 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

We predict the past, but we are predicting the future because we haven't seen the movie yet, we are predicting the future, even although it's the past, because *we* haven't predicted it yet. The timeline is a constant here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
We predict the past, but we are predicting the future because we haven't seen the movie yet, we are predicting the future, even although it's the past, because *we* haven't predicted it yet. The timeline is a constant here.
excellent quote.

Last edited by Cyclops; 30/04/2008 at 10:12 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 30/04/2008, 06:34 PM
hkkmr's Avatar
hkkmr hkkmr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 95
Default

For me, prediction has to do with results not being "known" rather then being locate in future space-time relative to me. We simulate prediction often by obscuring knowledge of the past to conduct experiments on known quantities.

Pre - diction
Before - To say

Human speaking before knowing what the universe said.

So really many aspects of science, history is really us going over home movies of the universe, as well as predicting what's in those home movies(kinda of 50's like.. grainy). We predict the known which we've hidden from ourselves temporarily so that we can predict the "unknown" which will be revealed.

So when I talk about prediction it is rather this essential mechanism instead of the limiting criteria of future speculation.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 30/04/2008, 06:36 PM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
We predict the past, but we are predicting the future because we haven't seen the movie yet, we are predicting the future, even although it's the past, because *we* haven't predicted it yet. The timeline is a constant here.



excellent quote.

So you are saying we are both predicting the past and the future? If so, I agree.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 30/04/2008, 08:51 PM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
For me, prediction has to do with results not being "known" rather then being locate in future space-time relative to me. We simulate prediction often by obscuring knowledge of the past to conduct experiments on known quantities.

Pre - diction
Before - To say

Human speaking before knowing what the universe said.

So really many aspects of science, history is really us going over home movies of the universe, as well as predicting what's in those home movies(kinda of 50's like.. grainy). We predict the known which we've hidden from ourselves temporarily so that we can predict the "unknown" which will be revealed.

So when I talk about prediction it is rather this essential mechanism instead of the limiting criteria of future speculation.
I agree.

I also agree with SG that a prediction requires future. But I disagree with his argument against hkkmr that a prediction cannot also involve the past(I am unsure about the present; I am not very imaginative right now). I think that with the development of modern technologies it is possible to predict the past through the "current" of the future. I predict that this point will only be made clearer in the coming years.


"one man's past is another man's future" Tells me that SG is capable of objectifying the past and future. He is able to identify that 'Person A' can predict 'Person B's' past. So where is the argument? Maybe we need more words?

Just because you don't have a word for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 30/04/2008, 10:35 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandapanda View Post
Vibration, you obviously know how to irritate ISTps. What I want to know is - why? Is it boredom? I get that, too - but as much as I think 'grrrr...ISTjs' sometimes,
I am a bloody expert at irritating anyone that I want to irritate at any time. But I was not always good at this you know. You need a very good reason to become an expert in this area. Take a good look at this guy for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF3yb1g30Io

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF3yb1g30Io

I discovered him just recently. And I just had to watch all 40 videos.
I cant express how incredibly funny and intelligent and knowledgeable I think he is. Though Im not completely blind. He is obviously hurt. Wouldn’t you agree? There is a driver behind all of this of course –the MUSE. Anyway although his driver presumably negative, he is perfectly alright I think, although some people might confuse what he is saying with pure radical evil. (BTW, Cyclops I think this answers your question if I am religious or not).




Quote:
Originally Posted by pandapanda View Post
I wouldn't attack someone who did no harm to me based on something they said.
No of course. Why should you? I have never done that either. Truly good people make me deeply sentimental. They are the meaning of life.



Quote:
Originally Posted by pandapanda View Post
Maybe you don't know how upsetting glib statements about people's intelligence are to (I'm guessing) , but they annoy even when it's not directed at them.
Sometimes you are upset as well. And then you will cross the line. Just like me. You are no angel. Well, were you REALLY upset –you little psychologist making experiments with people (me as well maybe?) in society all the time (at least according to the theory, or are you an exception)? I hope you didn’t get as upset as you make it sound. Besides, being seriously annoyed can be fruitful in times of stagnancy, almost like passion, inspiration –the MUSE! It could be like a healthy kick in the ass (although sometimes, if the timing is wrong for example, it could kick your ass backwards in time). Am I a time machine for you? Haha!


Cyclops, here is the solution:

The good old cubes of 1, 2, 3, 5 (1235) give 1, 8, 27, 125 (1827125)
It was all about filling in the blanks and commas!
My weird sense of humour!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 SOCIONICS.COM