Examples of Ni

[Kmal]

Yup, it's kind of complex like how Beebe goes on about 'conacting the subconscious anima' in dream states to integrate the collective sub(un)-conscious.

yeah that sounds like meta programming. the collective unconscious is the infinity in which mystics speak; like the painter who was in the field and painted the field, then realized he forgot to paint himself in the field, then he realized he forgot to paint himself painting himself in the field, ad infinitum. your consciousness, subjective reality, is easily manipulated by you with the help of the collective unconsciousness's infinite potential.

 

[InvisibleJim]

yeah that sounds like meta programming. the collective unconscious is the infinity in which mystics speak; like the painter who was in the field and painted the field, then realized he forgot to paint himself in the field, then he realized he forgot to paint himself painting himself in the field, ad infinitum. your consciousness, subjective reality, is easily manipulated by you with the help of the collective unconsciousness's infinite potential.

Jung didn't really follow what we would accept as 'standard' scientific practice. He based a lot of his findings on loose anecdotes and spent years and years playing with mysticism, hypnosis and psychic iconoclasism. A lot of his theories are thus, although interesting, somewhat mind-bending to the sane onlooker.

 

[AUM]

Jung didn't really follow what we would accept as 'standard' scientific practice. He based a lot of his findings on loose anecdotes and spent years and years playing with mysticism, hypnosis and psychic iconoclasism. A lot of his theories are thus, although interesting, somewhat mind-bending to the sane onlooker.

Many people type Jung as INTP, but to me, he was a hardcore Ni-dominant. No INTP would condone research with no scientific basis.

 

[not sure]

Many people type Jung as INTP, but to me, he was a hardcore Ni-dominant. No INTP would condone research with no scientific basis.

I would agree with this too. The way he pulls a new hypothesis from entirely unrelated subject areas seems very much like Ni to me. However, I'm sure someone said somewhere else on these forums that he selftyped as ISTJ.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Many people type Jung as INTP, but to me, he was a hardcore Ni-dominant. No INTP would condone research with no scientific basis.

We are products of our time; he was a product of mid-Victorian thinking; so these kind of scientific methods which became because robustly established shared in WW2 just weren't available during his education and therefore he didn't take a lot of time to consider it. Even the WW2 german scientists which followed similar practices (he was Swiss) had some very lackluster if admittedly creative approaches to problems.

Most understanding, including technical and scientific philosophies before this point did not refer continually to benchmarks and references (things which we take for granted) were sidelined in favour of 'it sounds right/works right, then it's good enough.'

 

[AUM]

I would agree with this too. The way he pulls a new hypothesis from entirely unrelated subjected areas seems very much like Ni to me. However, I'm sure someone said somewhere else on these forums that he selftyped as ISTJ.

Actually Jung typed himself as a thinking type (Ti or Te dominant; most likely Ti), he implied it in one of his videos. So I don't know, we can say that he mistyped himself which would be sort of absurd since he was the father of personality types, but still, I think he had a good handle on Ni.

Go to minute 8:38 when he begins talking about his own type. He says that he had great thinking, good intuition, bad feeling and horrendous sensing.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD-W-1z_qco&feature=related"]YouTube - ‪Face to face with Carl Jung - Part 3 of 4‬‏[/ame]

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I've not read too far into Jung's work on the psychological types, but judging by what he has said, it seems that he was using a very different system to the one which we use here. Indeed, the interpretations of each of the Four aspects may be so different that he could be judged differently from one system to the next.

 

[VH]

Jung self identified as an Ni/Ti, and called it a "True type". He was a classic example of how Ni and Ti get into an overclarifying loop. His delving into mysticism and the supernatural, aside from the fact that his work is almost without exception focused on people, pretty clearly says INFJ. INTJ could be argued, but he was far more concerned with how things work (Ti) than able to see how they relate (Te). If he could see how they relate, he wouldn't have been so frequently caught in his clarification loops.

 

[Orion]

Here is the issue I'm having. These are perception functions so I assume this is the means by which we become aware of our internal and external environment. Do I misunderstand what is meant by perception in this context?

Yeah, but perceiving functions are still an intepretation and biased orientation to reality, even Se and Si.

I can understand the intuitive perceiving ideas about their internal environment directly, since ideas spontaneously arise but, I can't comprehend how they would perceive ideas about the external environment without first processing sensory data.

Yeah, it does process sensory data first. All the functions filter incoming data through our senses, it's how we live, of course.

I think you think, that sensing functions are just are just raw reality and that they are an accurate view of actual incoming data. They aren't. Se and Si are still perspectives and abstractions of actual reality just Ni and Ne- all the functions are and none of them, technically, are objective.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Jung self identified as an Ni/Ti, and called it a "True type". He was a classic example of how Ni and Ti get into an overclarifying loop. His delving into mysticism and the supernatural, aside from the fact that his work is almost without exception focused on people, pretty clearly says INFJ. INTJ could be argued, but he was far more concerned with how things work (Ti) than able to see how they relate (Te). If he could see how they relate, he wouldn't have been so frequently caught in his clarification loops.

With caution : Ni/Ti

Could be INFJ - Ni-Fe-Ti-Se

Or ISTP Ti-Se-Ni-Fe

With INFJ having ISTP in the stressed/excitement state
and ISTP having INFJ in the stressed/excitement state

 

[not sure]

Yeah, but perceiving functions are still an intepretation and biased orientation to reality, even Se and Si.



Yeah, it does process sensory data first. All the functions filter incoming data through our senses, it's how we live, of course.

I think you think, that sensing functions are just are just raw reality and that they are an accurate view of actual incoming data. They aren't. Se and Si are still perspectives and abstractions of actual reality just Ni and Ne- all the functions are and none of them, technically, are objective.

Great so you see what it is that I'm getting at. I do think that we all process raw sensory data and that is inescapable. However, the jargon being used needs clarification. Now that we've established that perceptive functions aren't handling raw data, what is the distinction between sensory information and intuitive information? To say intuitive information are ideas is unhelpful since all abstracted information must be ideas. Where do you draw the line between intuition and sensing? Once we've drawn that line, how do we know where the functions are situated in the conscious? How did Jung decide what belonged to the conscious and the subconscious? This is important for the person who is attempting to self-type. When I read examples of the functions, all I see are contradictions and I suspect I'm not the only person. These fundamental issues keep arising on the forums not because the people who are discussing them are new (the main players rarely change) but, the issues are muddy.

 

[Orion]

Now that we've established that perceptive functions aren't handling raw data, what is the distinction between sensory information and intuitive information?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. There is no such thing as "sensory information" or "intuitive information". There is only information and what our sensing and intuitive perceptions draw from it. Sensing or intuition prefers the individual to give credence to incoming information in a way that filters, compares and gives emphasis too what we, as an individual, find important. At least, that's what I've gleaned from it.

To say intuitive information are ideas is unhelpful since all abstracted information must be ideas.

Confuzzed. Can you rephrase that?

How did Jung decide what belonged to the conscious and the subconscious?[/B]

Maybe by preference? What we naturally prefer to do? It's also a lot to do with Archetypes because apparently the unconcsious is constantly pushing and pulling us to compensate and keep balance and those unconscious forces are observable when it comes to the surface, especially in defense mechanisms. But I don't know much about this which I why I'm reading Jung's work and stuff on Analytical Psychology.

When I read examples of the functions, all I see are contradictions and I suspect I'm not the only person. These fundamental issues keep arising on the forums not because the people who are discussing them are new (the main players rarely change) but, because the issues are muddy.

The way to answer these questions is to have a broader understanding of Analytical Psychology in general because, I too, am sensitive to the big gaps in information on these basic points of origin. Understanding Jung's proposition of the Psyche, archetypes etc is the key component. I've noticed a lot of threads are treading this limitation because we tend to stop talking about Types and more about human "issues" which is usually separate from functional analysis and more to do with neurosis, trauma and defense mechanisms etc.

 

[not sure]

My response makes use of terms introduced by other participants in the thread. The reason I ask is that there has been this emphasis that intuitives are comfortable with abstraction however, we all use abstraction therefore I'd like to know how we distinguish between the sensor and the intuitive in that case. There are also issues regarding how consciousness are defined and where the perceptive functions are seated in consciousness. The concept of Archetypes is also puzzling. Jung claims that they are common throughout cultures. Which cultures did he examine and how do we know he hasn't introduced bias?

I too am learning and I'm certain I'm less knowledgable on the subject than most here. However, these questions plague me. The truth is that I am more interested in the questions that members pose than the answers because I believe there is more value to be gained by approaching this critically. I have difficulty just going along with what I am reading because the why and the how did he come to that conclusion keep intruding into my thoughts. The foundation must be strong before I can accept that his hypothesis has merit. I admit that typing does seem to group similar people however, I am yet to be convinced that it is any more accurate than the Enneagram, astrology or randomness. Further, I notice that the replies to questions instead of simplifying the matter actually tend to increase the complexity which also bothers me. I tend to agree with Albert Einstein, the famous ENTP, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Since I cannot explain it simply, I must continue to grapple with it so, I beg patience.

 

[VH]

Here's an example that might be familiar to some of you.

I have a client who is an ISTP. He requires a ridiculous amount of pedantic clarification. He frequently asks me to write up proposals in step by step detail that might as well just be doing the actual job at that point.

Problem: I can see what needs to be done so clearly that I can't actually ennunciate it, and bothering to slow down and write it all out is next to impossible for me. I see it. He knows I can see it. I've proven this time and again, and yet he can't manage to just trust me to do my thing without entirely ruining my flow. He wants to know exactly how everything is going to be done, and I'm literally stumbling over having to explain any of it.

I am so often tempted to say, "For crying out loud, I just do it. This is why you pay me. I do what you can't. It's a magic trick."

 

[Resonance]

Here's an example that might be familiar to some of you.

I have a client who is an ISTP. He requires a ridiculous amount of pedantic clarification. He frequently asks me to write up proposals in step by step detail that might as well just be doing the actual job at that point.

Problem: I can see what needs to be done so clearly that I can't actually ennunciate it, and bothering to slow down and write it all out is next to impossible for me. I see it. He knows I can see it. I've proven this time and again, and yet he can't manage to just trust me to do my thing without entirely ruining my flow. He wants to know exactly how everything is going to be done, and I'm literally stumbling over having to explain any of it.

I am so often tempted to say, "For crying out loud, I just do it. This is why you pay me. I do what you can't. It's a magic trick."

I have very similar experiences, except the ISTP is my mother. >.>'

 

[technics]

I just remembered how I learned to ride the bike as a 6 or 7-year-old: I was standing in front of our house on the street looking at my bike. And a decision was plaguing me because one side (the weaker one) said I should use the training wheels and learn slowly, perhaps within the next few days. But the other side (the stronger one) wanted to learn quickly.

And especially this side was extremely convinced that if I just ride that bike down that one road (a road downhill) without training wheels, the pressure of having to learn biking within those few seconds will lastingly shape me how to ride the bike. And that's what I did: I rode the bike downhill, crashed after about 100 metres (330ft), scraped my elbows and knees, but after that I knew how to ride the bike. Immediately afterwards I tried it again on a level road and, yes: I could ride the bike. And it felt as if I always knew how to ride it.

I also remember (I should be careful about touching these memories because somehow I have the impression that I modify them if I touch them too often) that that awareness was stronger when I was at that age.

 

[technics]

Actually Jung typed himself as a thinking type (Ti or Te dominant; most likely Ti), he implied it in one of his videos. So I don't know, we can say that he mistyped himself which would be sort of absurd since he was the father of personality types, but still, I think he had a good handle on Ni.

I don't think you could ever understand these things with Ti. Ti has only two sides and you would end up in confusion because of the contradictions that come up with this subject matter. Ti is good for post-processing in this context.

 

[MikeA]

I have a client who is an ISTP. He requires a ridiculous amount of pedantic clarification.

Perhaps this is unnecessary of me since you were just informing about something else, but I found what you said interesting (A non-JCF interest).

When I tutor someone I make comparisons between something the student already knows and the subject. E.g. he's a car-fanatic, knows his ways with the mechanics of it, so I use car-analogies to approach the subject. He then immediately understands, or at least think he does, but it is enough to get him going, trying, and failing, thus learning by himself. He had to understand that what we were building was pretty much the same thing as building a car, even though the two concepts were miles a part.

As of now, I believe your client has learned that he cannot walk on water, and that you're asking him to trust you that he can walk on water if he just think harder. You're giving him the mechanics to why, but the mechanics means little to what he has already learned. In order to flip that switch, you need to give him a reference like "boat" for instance. Could I be on to something, or, was I completely off base because I don't know the whole story?

 

[AUM]

I don't think you could ever understand these things with Ti. Ti has only two sides and you would end up in confusion because of the contradictions that come up with this subject matter. Ti is good for post-processing in this context.

[MENTION=4137]technics[/MENTION]
So basically you're saying that he most likely mistyped himself? Assuming that by "you could never understand these thing with Ti" you meant Jung's work.