Cognitive Function: Ne vs Ni - Page 27

Cognitive Function: Ne vs Ni

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 27 of 29 FirstFirst ... 17 25 26 27 28 29 LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 285
Thank Tree800Thanks

This is a discussion on Cognitive Function: Ne vs Ni within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; Originally Posted by Le9acyMuse External hypotheses versus psyche hypotheses. Of course, 'external' suggests a focus on face-value elements. 'Psyche' suggests ...

  1. #261

    Quote Originally Posted by Le9acyMuse View Post
    External hypotheses versus psyche hypotheses. Of course, 'external' suggests a focus on face-value elements. 'Psyche' suggests reinventions of face-value elements.

    Ne hypothesizes about the forms of objects: color, shape, sound, texture. Ne asks how forms resemble the forms of other objects, and alternately asks how these forms can be best crafted to fit a personal ideal.

    Ni hypothesizes about the absolute essence of objects: the colors, the sounds, and textures lead to their innermost qualities. Ni asks what these features suggest about the object itself - its core or nature - and then asks how these features can be inerrantly used.
    I don't think intuition hypothesizes about anything, these are perceptions not judgments. You don't choose to perceive something, it just happens. Of course after you perceive you may organize it into a hypothesis using judgment.

  2. #262

    I think Ne is known for getting a wide variety of ideas, whereas Ni is better known for deeply connecting with just a few key points.

  3. #263

    Hmm I think I may be a Ni dom not a Ne dom. The more I read about typology the less confident I get lol.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #264

    Quote Originally Posted by Chest View Post
    I don't think intuition hypothesizes about anything, these are perceptions not judgments. You don't choose to perceive something, it just happens. Of course after you perceive you may organize it into a hypothesis using judgment.
    Point taken, however, literally describing cognitive functions isn't simple. Every action in language that people do technically requires all the functions. "Predict" or "hypothesize" aren't the absolute words for what Ni and Ne do, but they're convenient devices to simulate Intuition.

    Intuition uses references to...consume useful information for future use, such as via application to other functions. Unfortunately that's so vague it could describe every function. To describe things without knowing their very nature, the best we've got is mapping out distinctions of arguably general notions and tendencies.
    Chest thanked this post.

  6. #265

    Quote Originally Posted by Le9acyMuse View Post
    "Predict" or "hypothesize" aren't the absolute words for what Ni and Ne do, but they're convenient devices to simulate Intuition.
    by that answer I can tell you have good Ti

  7. #266

    Quote Originally Posted by n.yumikim View Post
    I'm a bit confused. My experience with Ne and Ni has always been divergent and convergent thinking. When I showed a french fry to two friends, the

    Ne said: pickle. cacti. giraffe.
    Ni said: sodium. fast food. heart attack.

    I don't see how one runs and one teleports. I only see one throwing their hands out and the other folding them in. Idea-wise, that is.

    In terms of answering a question like 4000 * 82,
    I figure the Ne would answer slower than the Ni because Ne gets distracted while solving the problem. Say,

    Ne = Okay! Split it up! 82 * 4 => 4*2=8; put that 8 down there. looks like a snowman... 4*8 = 32. put the 32 down there. 8 and 32. 32 and 8. 328. put three 0's. 328000. should i say hundred thousands? or should i said three two eight zero zero zero? which would be faster to say? three two eight zero zero zero!

    Ni = 82 times for is 4 times 2 is 8 and 8 times 4 is 32. in front of the 8. position the three zeros and we have three hundred and twenty eight thousand.

    so I see it as more as one is dancing around with the process while the other walks there. Dancing allows Ne to stumble upon creative ideas that Ni's might be oblivious to, as they're so determined to walk a straight line.

    This is consistent with the "seek gain" and "avoid loss" mentality. Ne = seek gain of ideas: makes as many associations as his brain allows it, because there's a gold mine somewhere. Ni = avoid loss of ideas: make only necessary and worthy associations, because time spent on unnecessary associations is time lost.
    Hey, about a month ago, I was talking to someone through private messaging and I ended up referencing this post, and I thought I'd just let you know. It's nice to know when people mention you or your work, y'know?

    Anyway, the post was:

    Honestly, I don't have a full understanding of Ni. I get a lot of definitions. Something to do with the "Aha!" moment. Ne is sometimes thought of as random ideas coming out of nowhere. Ni is thought of as a random idea coming out of nowhere.

    I saw an Ni vs Ne thread and everyone was speaking in crazy metaphors. The only one I could understand and appreciate was something like "Ne and Ni are trying to do a math equation.

    Ni is like '4000*82. 82*4 is 4*2+10(4*8), which is 8+10(32), which is 328, so 82*4=328, so 82*4000 is 328000.'

    Ne is like 'Mkay! Right, so we should split this baby up. 4000*82 can be 4*82 with 3 zeroes put in it later. You go over here, zeroes, don't you cry, you'll get to join your family again after I mathematically mutilate them. Hey, mutilate has 8 letters and 8 is one of the numbers I'm multiplying! Anyway, 4*82, let's start with 4*2. 8. Man, what is with all these eights? Multiply has eight letters too. And it starts with "Mu" like mutilate, and 62.5% of the letters are the same. Back on topic, 4*8 is 32. Huh, 3*2 is 6, and 6 is the amount of letters in zeroes and 3 is one of the numbers used to multiply to get it, and there are 3 zeroes. Okay, so 328, now we can get the other zeroes back. Come here, zero babies. Hey, that's the same amount of babies I have! So, 3-2-8-0-0-0. Woah, those digits add up to 13, and so do the digits to the percentage of letters that mutilate and multiple have in common, 6-2-5! Whaaaaat?'"

     
    Lol, I was actually using my Ne for the Ne one there because I didn't want to copy the post I was linking to.

    So, Ni goes straight to the answer, Ne swerves around and covers more ground but takes more time. Ni is the guy speedrunning through Borderlands 2 and Ne is the guy staying behind and going "Duuude, check out this map. Look over here, look over there!"
    "GODDAMMIT, NE. Come ON, let me get to-"
    "Hey, I just found an Easter Egg."
    "I don't care abou frivolous Easter Eggs right now, I'm trying to get the world record!"
    "Woah, it just unlocked a secret to the end of the game."
    "WOULD YOU JUST wait really?"

    If that's correct, then yes. I use Ni whenever I'm in math competitions all the time. I skip a LOT of steps without really knowing how, and that's how I win the "get the answer part," but then they're all "How did you get that answer?" for the next part of the competition and I just make shit up as I go along with Ne once it's not timed anymore and they're like "What!? He did all that in his head? What a genius!" when I'm actually probably the dumbest kid in the competition and I'm basically cheating my way to the top by not showing them my actual thought process or following any of the rules.

    Something you will soon learn about me: I have average, mediocre intelligence but I'm AWESOME at faking smarts.
    So, is this accurate or...?

    Something that confuses me is I thought that that's what Ti and Te were. Ti likes to linger around the system and work out its little logical kinks and get it all together, while Te just goes straight to the application or right to the point. Is it just that Ne and Ni are unconsciously doing that and Ti and Te are consciously doing that?

  8. #267

    I agree.

    Ne is short-term and Ni is long term.
    chanteuse and Nephilibata thanked this post.

  9. #268

    Great article. I am more confident in my Ni now, thank you.

  10. #269

    This could have been way more concise. Next time explain like I'm 5, because this was no help at all.
    RubiksCubix thanked this post.

  11. #270

    Quote Originally Posted by MegaTuxRacer View Post
    So I got really frustrated that there is no good article about Ni vs. Ne. I think to understand either of these functions, one must first recognize what intuition is and that both of these functions simply have a different process by which they intuit information. Indeed all functions are this way, but Ne/Ni are probably the two most misunderstood functions out of the 8. Please leave any comments, criticisms, or suggestions as I fully recognize that I could be very wrong with much of this. However, I do believe I am right, and I think these are good descriptions. If this is indeed a good description of both functions, mods feel free to sticky. Special thanks to @Ace Face for proofreading and checking for correctness for me throughout this process. Without any further ado, enjoy!











    The problem with the cognitive function descriptors that leads to a lot of confusion between the different functions is that one function will be described with traits that the other function possesses, and the other function will have those traits left out. For example, Fi is a value-based moral compass where Fe is an objective judgment of the morals external to the self. Somehow, it seems that many people get the impression that Fe is somehow less moralistic than Fi. I see the same confusion between Ne and Ni.

    The truth is that both are abstract perceiving functions that are all about making connections between abstract ideas. They are both pattern-recognizing and they both deal in symbols and true meaning. The key to understanding both functions is to understand the methods by which they go about doing these things. Both are very different in these methods, and that is where their differences are. This is not something that is easy to explain to someone who does not understand the differences between the two functions in just a few sentences, so this is going to be a long post.

    Ne

    Ah yes, Ne. The best of the intuitive functions! Okay maybe not, but I like it a lot. The truth is that Ne is a really incredible function that is very powerful when used correctly. How Ne intuits ideas is objective. That is to say that it sees symbols, ideas, and patterns in the object at hand rather than the subject (Ni is subjective), so the Ne user sees an objective symbol. For the purposes of this post, please think of an object as anything that can be perceived, such as an object, situation, story, etc. That is not to say that Ne is always correct in its observations. The contrary can also be true. The reason behind this is that Ne will see all possible symbols and ideas for a specific object. However, the Ne user is not always conscious of all of these possibilities. What ends up happening to eliminate these possibilities is that the judging function Ne is working with at any given moment will assist Ne in eliminating certain possibilities. For example, with myself (Ne-Ti), if I saw a car parked, I could easily eliminate the possibility that it has been retrofitted with a rocket to launch it into space since there would be no visible rocket on it, and cars aren’t made that way (but it would be really cool!). That reasoning is that of Ti. If you would like a more colloquial example, ask an ENTP what it’s like when they really like a girl/guy or ask an ISFJ what it’s like when they are really worried about someone they love. Ne without a judging function is extremely irrational, and even with a judging function, that judging function needs to be well developed in order for the user to come to the correct conclusion about all of the possible ideas.

    To summarize this particular point, Ne is an explosion of ideas that sees every possibility, given a specific object. Honing in on one idea is the job of whatever judging function that is working in tandem with Ne. An appropriate visual representation would be that of a supernova. What starts as a star explodes into all of its properties removed from the object itself and completely deconstructed. Ne does a similar thing. It completely deconstructs an object according to the ideas, symbols, systems, what have you associated with that object.

    One thing that is heard often about Ne is that it is all about making connections. That is indeed true, but Ne needs to have a correct base to jump off of in order to make the correct connections. It is my belief that Ne on its own can make connections based on all of the possibilities it intuits, but those connections will have little relevance to the outside world. The resulting structure would look more like a giant ball of tangled Christmas lights a la Christmas Vacation rather than a structured and organized web. Knowing this, a well-developed judging function is crucial to Ne making the correct connections required for being a well-developed individual. So yes, Ne does make a ton of connections, but Ne without any other function does not do this well. Ni doesn’t either, but that’s for a different reason.

    Ni

    Again, as stated above, introverted intuition makes connections, sees symbols, etc. However, Ni is subjective rather than objective. Remember that we are thinking of objective and subjective in the sense that an objective function is all about the object at hand and the subjective function is all about the subject at hand. Given that, Ni without any other functions cannot intuit anything as it perceives based on past data that was gathered by the user. It must be presented with a goal, and it must have data that already exists to work. Where Ne can simply see through an object to its systems and symbols, Ni literally recreates them based on information that is known. In this way, Ni very much studies the subject at hand much like a student would study a subject for school. When studying, the professor or teacher will choose a textbook (or it is chosen for that teacher/professor by the “powers that be”), not all of the information in the textbook is relevant to the subject at hand. In that way, the student will not read through the entire book since the course may simply cover certain chapters. Ni is much the same way, and the Ni user’s past experiences and learned material (facts, feelings, etc.) can be thought of as the textbook in this situation. Ni will skim through the information in a very subconscious manner, ignoring what is irrelevant and including what is relevant. Eventually, much like a student towards the end of the course, what is to be perceived becomes more and more clear until, finally, what is being intuited is simply seen as a whole.

    To use the astronomy example that was used to describe Ne, Ni is much like a nebula. A nebula, if you don’t already know, is a cloud of particulate and other forms of matter in space that slowly forms into a star system. Over time, what looks like an amorphous blob begins to collapse in on itself until a star is formed and possibly planets as well. These solar systems that are formed are there for the long term. Ni is much the same way. The systems and models that Ni forms are often very much long-term models and systems that will stand the test of time and hold up well under scrutiny. This is why Ni is often described as the long-term system building function. The more relevant information an Ni user possesses, the stronger the system that is being built. The less information an Ni user possesses, the weaker the system that is being built or the system may simply never coalesce.

    To summarize Ni, where Ne is an explosion of ideas from one thing, Ni is where one idea coalesces from many ideas.

    Clarifications

    Ne is not a long-term system builder. This is a true statement. In fact, I believe there are only 4 types that are long-term system builders that use Ne. Those are ENTPs, INTPs, ENFPs, and INFPs. And to use the term “build” is somewhat a misnomer. Often an Ne/Ji user will stumble upon a long-term system or simply have an idea once the Ne/Ji has gathered enough information. In many ways, the long-term systems that Ne/Ji users might form can be superior to that of an Ni user, but most of the time they will not. The breadth of knowledge that an Ne user will gather brings new perspective to the systems being built, and it may present an angle that Ni would not have seen as relevant. However, this is somewhat rare. However, in terms of systems that already exist, Ne will almost always see what Ni does not.

    Ni does not see the symbols and connections in ideas and objects external to the self. This is also a true statement. At least it is in terms of directly seeing symbols and connections between objects as they are directly perceived external to the self. Since Ni pulls information that is known to the user away in order to form symbols and systems, it does not perceive an object directly. It takes what is known about the object to form the symbols about that object. In many ways this is reinventing the wheel, so it cannot directly see the symbols in something external to the self. Research (other forms of perception, Je, or actual research) must be done about that object so that Ni can see the symbol.

    Ni takes a long time. This is false. At least in most situations it is. Depending on the complexity of the system being intuited, Ni may instantly form a system or find something’s true meaning quickly, or it may take a long time. This is variable depending on how many moving pieces there are to Ni’s goal.

    Ni is not specific. Ni is as specific as it needs to be. If information is not relevant to the system being formed, Ni ignores it. In this way, Ni users may be very general in the systems they form or they may be very specific. It really depends on Ni’s goal.
    Which function uses more metaphors and analogies in daily language and breaking things down to understand??


     
Page 27 of 29 FirstFirst ... 17 25 26 27 28 29 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. How much of each cognitive function do YOU think you have?
    By thehigher in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 07-10-2014, 01:18 PM
  2. [INFJ] New Cognitive Function Quiz
    By Collossus in forum INFJ Forum - The Protectors
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 04-15-2013, 04:43 PM
  3. What Cognitive Function would this fall under?
    By Jiena in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-19-2011, 01:08 AM
  4. Wich Cognitive Function Is That?
    By Garfield in forum Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-02-2011, 08:53 AM
  5. [ENFP] Cognitive Function Test
    By cbelle in forum ENFP Forum - The Inspirers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-21-2010, 06:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:26 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0