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
  #1  
Old 09/03/2008, 02:35 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Ni vs Ne

What does Ne tell us? If you can't see something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What does Ni tell us? If I can't see something - it isn't there...

Ladies and gentlemen, Echochrome:



Direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywej7hBP17U

TIP: How to embed a YouTube video...


Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10/03/2008, 12:00 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Looks interesting. I'll try to check this out later today hopefully.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10/03/2008, 09:06 PM
itinerant_stapler71's Avatar
itinerant_stapler71 itinerant_stapler71 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 77
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
What does Ne tell us? If you can't see something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What does Ni tell us? If I can't see something - it isn't there...
no.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11/03/2008, 04:37 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by itinerant_stapler71 View Post
no.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
Care to elborate?

I think Ne sees possibilities which aren't always apparent, it seems to be able to make connections to apparently unconnected things, and to me when it looks at something, it looks like it came up with something else from what the object it observed actually is. I think it's probably a function which could be described as 'imaginitive'

Ni has always been a bit vague to me, but it seems to see more what could happen in the past and the future, but it is still observing what is before it's eyes when doing this, that doesn't change, it's still seeing what is there. The possibilities of that object may exist to it in future or past tense, but the object itself doesn't change.

Does anyone else think this is right? Or can they elaborate for me.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11/03/2008, 05:34 PM
complicater-complexer's Avatar
complicater-complexer complicater-complexer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,365
Default

Want to make your Ni work? Watch the film: Vintage point (or The Vintage point, I don't remember exactly what it was). It is very fascinating. Very Ni!
__________________
"To live happy, live hidden."
β ST, E6 autopreservation.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03/04/2008, 07:12 PM
Tron Tron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 82
Default

"What does Ni tell us? If I can't see something - it isn't there" ... Sounds like Ni is a sensing function. Plus, I thought that Ni is to do with something spiritual (which cannot be seen).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03/04/2008, 07:15 PM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default

I think that Ni and Ne are the same thing but are in separate places.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03/04/2008, 08:53 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tron View Post
"What does Ni tell us? If I can't see something - it isn't there" ... Sounds like Ni is a sensing function. Plus, I thought that Ni is to do with something spiritual (which cannot be seen).
Ni is what you believe the actual world around you like and many other things too.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03/04/2008, 09:50 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Ni is delusional then? Sorry for the choice of word! Just re your comment and trons, i've always viewed sensing as seeing that world for what it is, but then Ni is seeing the world for what it isn't? And Ne is seeing what it could be?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03/04/2008, 10:08 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

When I say world around you I don't mean just physical space around you.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04/04/2008, 08:27 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Believe it or not I've just watched the trailer! Looks like quite a good game! Can it be downloaded or is something that has to be paid for? (i'm not tight..i'm just curious )
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 24/04/2008, 09:26 PM
LordJavathe3rd LordJavathe3rd is offline
I'm an idiot!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Cool New to the forum

Hey SG, lord god of the forum.

I'll venture to say that you don't understand Ni.

I think and I could be wrong(don't chuckle) that since Ni is a perceiving function, it doesn't make judgments. It only takes in information, next question is what kind of information it takes in? When I look at objects, instead of making sensate encapsulations, I tend to encapsulate the object according to what I perceive it is trying to do, become, just its overall purpose. Now Fe and Te take that information and try to construct usable information from it, which gives the illusion of Ni being good with time. Ni doesn't have anything to do with time, but destination in purpose, and possible routes to be taken that are most common.

Anyway, I'm new to the forum, so I don't know who to brown nose. Although I've seen a lot of people paying undo respect to you SG. I say undo, but this forum is yours, the site is yours, and pretty much all correct knowledge and understanding. I must be off to work, but I wanted to say I'm in the most awkward position. I've found out that Socionics is far superior to MBTI theory. Your site is the best Socionics site I've thus far seen and you're war against Ni, Te, and anything you're not immediately using is all bunk, while you defend like a mother her nest every function that you have with in your grasp, as in the closest 4. I don't know much at all about type, I'm just going to read and learn. I'll try my best not to be offended by you SG, and all your arrogant statements.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 25/04/2008, 10:50 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default

Let me try not to offend you with my next arrogant statement: you don't urinate in the jug you drink from. You want to learn something from me by being a prick? I don't think you deserve posting privileges. While it is easier said than done in the Q&A section, your spiteful attitude makes your posts easy to spot. Now, the16types are that way ---->
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 26/04/2008, 12:51 AM
remo remo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 66
Default

my turn

Ni - a priori. for the sake of reference, as a means to expand upon, prior to logical inference. preparatory. transit. must be 'open' (radial) in order to be [particle-Yin]

Ne - a posteriori. scouting for deductible units. concrete. measured. movers and shakers of the world. must be 'closed' (harnessing) in order to move [wave-Yang]
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 26/04/2008, 01:00 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

The definition of time..not really a definition to me it's probably more of a metaphor. It's like (from what I think) Ni can go past, present, future and also in the mind. It's like 4 ways. Time is the fourth dimension, and it's kind of abstract. So from that way Ni is kind of what we know - the first three dimensions, and a little of what we don't know ..or rather, what we can't see (or maybe even perceive in our material way) .. Or something.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 26/04/2008, 04:46 AM
Epic's Avatar
Epic Epic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by remo View Post
my turn

Ni - a priori. for the sake of reference, as a means to expand upon, prior to logical inference. preparatory. transit. must be 'open' (radial) in order to be [particle-Yin]

Ne - a posteriori. scouting for deductible units. concrete. measured. movers and shakers of the world. must be 'closed' (harnessing) in order to move [wave-Yang]

I am glad remo brought up Kant. Jung was highly influenced by Kant in his development of a theory of psychological types/functions. From what I read of Kant(and have been able to take the time to understand), Kant described time(a form of internal intuition) as based on the tendency in awareness for an object or "thing" to change location by changing from one place at one time and appear in another place, at another time.

Intuition is the presence of objects in space and time. Objects in space are more akin to extraverted intuition whereas objects in time are introverted intuition.

The perception of time depends on the memory that the "thing" or "object", existed in other locations at other times.

This law, among others, causes time: "the same thing cannot exist in separate places at the same moment" = time

(Violations of this law occur most commonly between contrary partners)

Of course; an object can stay in one location for a period of time, but the perception of time will still exist because the conscious internal activity follows these laws and creates a backdrop in order for a thing to remain stationary, but still exist in time.

Since the perception of this time(the location of the objects in the past) is based on MEMORY(INTERNAL INFORMATION) the perception of where objects were is introverted intuition.

I wrote:

"The perception of time depends on the memory that the "thing" or "object", existed in other locations at other times."

Which kinda makes sense, but doesn't. I used the word i was trying to define, in my definition. Basically, an object travelling through space is the same thing in separate places, which doesn't make sense until you differentiate each object into an internal "place" instead of merely external. Since it is deterministically impossible for the same thing to exist in separate places externally, it can only happen as an internal perception. These internal perceptions are the places external objects are represented internally. this allows differentiation of the same thing into separate "times". If there were not time the differentiation of the position of the object would be impossible.

The past is the after-effect stored in memory of past sensory information, while the 'moment' is the most current sensory input of that object in space.

Last edited by Epic; 26/04/2008 at 04:46 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 26/04/2008, 08:43 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

@epic, i'm not keen to accept that it is a good idea to bring up kant, as on the face of it, i'm not keen on the idea that one must have to read up on philosophy in order to understand a function...

You can observe Ni in action without knowing anything about kant, of course. Surely there must be a way to define a function which makes it accessible in understanding to all? Or is it an excuse for people like yourself and remo to talk about stuff that other people don't know about. Sounds rather elitist. Hey..maybe it's because i don't really see much IRL practical applications of philosophy, or something.

Re, time: if the correct definition of time 'the rate at which things change' I don't think one has to have memory in order for things to change, it happens wether one remembers or not (for instance, one doesn't have to remember to know..one can keep records, look at indirect evidence such as digging to look at soil changes for historical changes)

In terms of a human using Ni..does she have to 'remember' for it to work? Is not Ni able to 'see past' what it remembers and see what it's possibilities of what it could have been or used to be?.Ni can then work even in the moment, regardless of it's memory.

Last edited by Cyclops; 26/04/2008 at 08:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 26/04/2008, 03:59 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default

Data turns into information. Information turns into knowledge.

In order for data to turn into information single data points have to be interconnected with eachother to create that information.

In order to create knowledge information must be interconnected with information.

You dont mix things with different units. You add 2 apples to 12 apples to get 16 apples. You dont add 2 apples to 12 oranges...

N picks similarities and relates those.

N interrelates data to create information.

N interrelates information to create knowledge.

N is an extrapolator, an integrator, an averager etc.

N is a function that does things to many things at the same time.

N is an operator simply.

N is pattern recognition without logic.

I agree with Epic, the "e" and "i" in Ne and Ni simply mean that the function N is operating at different places, e.g., externally/internally.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 26/04/2008, 04:22 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Data turns into information. Information turns into knowledge.

In order for data to turn into information single data points have to be interconnected with eachother to create that information.

In order to create knowledge information must be interconnected with information.
Could be..although I have a suspicion you are defining 'information' from a T --> Ti perspective
Quote:
You dont mix things with different units. You add 2 apples to 12 apples to get 16 apples. You dont add 2 apples to 12 oranges...

N picks similarities and relates those.

N interrelates data to create information.

N interrelates information to create knowledge.

N is an extrapolator, an integrator, an averager etc.

N is a function that does things to many things at the same time.

N is an operator simply.

N is pattern recognition without logic.
Are you sure this applies to creator N, i'm not sure, for instance N without logic..what if the feeder is logic
Quote:
I agree with Epic, the "e" and "i" in Ne and Ni simply mean that the function N is operating at different places, e.g., externally/internally.
As one is extroverted, and one is introverted, this makes sense.

I'm thinking of a better way to define N .. but will wait n' see
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 26/04/2008, 04:44 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
What does Ne tell us? If you can't see something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What does Ni tell us? If I can't see something - it isn't there...
I agree with the wholistic observation of data -the information. But I think the Ni interpretation could be polluted by dubious data.

How do you explain that Ne is 99% sure that something invisible might exist (or something visible might not exist for that matter) and that Ni is 99% sure of the existence of what it sees?

A straightforward interpretation could be that Ni has only 1% imagination of course. But it does not make sense. Why is Ni so S-like?

I wonder simply if the Ni interpretation could be polluted by e.g., corrupted data from too many ISTps being -INTp wannabes?

E.g., an ISTp would surely be far more S-like "here and now -I believe only what I see" than the INTp, no? Still the ISTp could be a logical integrator of vast amounts of data, or? I guess the ISTp and the INTp would merge and become indistinguishable over time -with age simply. What do you think?
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 05:52 AM.


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