She speaks about how she often communicates with her "future self" when facing difficult problems/decisions. At 09:30 she mentions how she solved a problem by asking her future self for advice, and in this way realized that the problem wasn't really a problem after all. This reminds me awfully of "transcending a problem", or "entering the meta-perspective", which Ni is often related to.
I'm curious to whether she actually is identifiable as an Ni-user (and what her CT is), using VR. I would like to ask the visual readers here for your help.
Post by ayoungspirit on Jul 24, 2013 20:40:50 GMT -5
It is a bit difficult to tell as this is more of a course than a spontaneous interaction with feedback, and there is no zoom on the face, and she seems already quite old, but here is what I can get from my incomplete knowledge. Better readers would perhaps be able to be more insightful or decisive. Also, I did not listen much of it, as it is late here and I am not in the mood for this kind of teaching.
The judging functions are for me the most readable, as her hands are typically Fi/Te (karate plank, stiffed extended fingers, etc), her articulation still a bit cold and robotic, her smile might be tense and rising up, pumping up her cheek while being blocked by it (again, old...) with always the same level of emotional undertone and not really cold neutralization of the face. She does a lot of controlling by the way of large and multiple judging moves, and she seems really invested in rules and dispensing of instructions, while keeping a lot of articulated rigidity and orientation by the way of the body, so my bet would be on high Te. A bit like what have been said about Newton here, she would go to use her perception functions to create very specific set of external rules of the outside world, regarding personal growth, but this could be my own false impression or due to the context.
For the perception, I can't tell, she has really old eyes and I can't tell if she scowls really or not, or which way, as she also sometimes wrinkles. The only picture of her look more Ni-Se though, as there is no wrinkles around the eyes or really pronounced down side brow. From what she says, it sounds like Ni from the fact that she really abstracts the past experience or any previous data into meaningful patterns and images, and the whole thought has a clear and holistic direction to it and less of a candid combination relying on raw past reference, but again, this seems heavily prepared, and I don't know if a combination of Si-Ne could work something like that as well for the speech. She does use precise past experience as a tool for a speech (to get the audience certainly). My guess is for TeNi or NiTe, but it is really a guess.
ayoungspirit Unfortunately this ghost of mine has no time in this deathtime (atm) to write careful nice posts like the one above, nor to shout backwards much in da box or play some practical jokes on members of dead bodies of the forum *uhhh.how.spooky.was.that?*. But hey (follow the ghost): her eyes are quiiite sharp, her Se-lock-ons are cutting and violent. She seems very heavy on both Ni and Se. Don't ya think?
Thanks for the reads! I think it would be safe to refer to her as a Ni-user, as suspected.
I have been fascinated with the concept of consulting with one's future self in order to realize an answer, as this is an idea I've seen referenced enough placed that I actually believe it to be something that is real to some people. The video gives a nice chance at perhaps finding a correlation between type and these experiences, since the woman in the video frequently has had these experiences (or so she says). I don't think many people here would be surprised if this is a experience only Ni-users can have, but of course, this is way to early to say.
Personally, I relate very little with the contents of this speech, which would perhaps indicate that I'm an Si/Ne-user. Even when hear about people having "hunches", I can't really relate. Ideas, sure, but I'll always know whether an idea is "correct" or not.. Problem is always the premises, which I always see clearly, but often are impossible to decide on whether are true or not (meaning that my ideas often just lead to new questions).
Having Ni, how do you guys relate to some of the stuff she says? Would you say that you have hunches? I'm especially curious about these experiences from here video: @04:00 - she had "become" the person she had a future image of (at 01:00) @05:00 - not knowing where the images of the future will "lead you" @09:00 - meta-perspective/transcending the problem at hand @10:00 - let the dynamic created by your intention/synchronicity guide you through the day (??)
Last Edit: Jul 25, 2013 8:41:59 GMT -5 by robinhood
Post by ayoungspirit on Jul 25, 2013 9:25:48 GMT -5
It will be a bit difficult in my opinion to clearly encase Ni from this extract because the speech and philosophy behind it seems to be deeply influenced by the Te-Fi oscillation as well (and that mine is also affected by my others functions in my analysis, as I use inversely Ti-Fe). All thing considered, Ni is in my opinion a very non-verbal process, difficult to translate transparently, without relying on these other functions. On another note, this is a somewhat patronizing and commercial speech. Therefore it could be a bit fake or at least fabricated into a more simplified and stunning image for the audience, like you suspect.
Speaking for myself, I will not talk to my future self image, and I would find this somehow silly on some level. However, I try as often as possible to consider the things one step further, even if they are very virtual and inconclusive on a factual level. Where I will be in the future ? What can I do before being dead ? What will be the consequences of this action ? The perspective is not that unified but I draw some variably long perspectives and somehow class them by order of interest or plausibility, and focus mostly on the best and more holistic one.
I draw this kind of perspective from the past too (one step behind I guess), seeing how some traits and some aspect have made me what I have become, how I participate to an abstract movement more than an autobiographical course, and how it can lead me in the future. It is not a very precise image, but more of a hazy (and sometime contradicting) collection of ideas, instantaneous patterns. They sometimes appear firstly in a quite symbolic form and I have to explain them by the way of metaphor or the like.
I don't believe this is really synchronicity, but more of a pattern interpretation of my brain. I do not know much about it actually but I find the concept itself a bit esoteric and possibly a fetichizing of anthropomorphist perception, or, in the context, a verbose sale pitch. However, transforming a problem by utilizing another key for reading; particularly in an impersonal and seemingly transcendent fashion, is familiar to me, I confirm.
I would say that, contrary to what is preached in the video, I will not become naturally focused on a single established symbolic objective, fixated by external order management (Te) translating the emotion authenticity of the individual (Fi). I believe this is more of the Gamma way. Like I said before, I am not that serious about it, I let a lot of different hypothesis flow into my head, just as pure, often playful and diversified speculations, and I refers to my other functions as well to guide me through the day. I am very laid-back and in the flow, following the immediate intuition and situation at hand, even if I have some lazy guiding principles and analysis of it, that I use conjointly when I have to take important decisions. This is more of a prominent reservoir of meaningful and plausible possibilities than a symbolic goal to be reached, even if some of my primary ambitions have been born in it.
When I use Ni like this, I condense naturally and somewhat simultaneously, half unconsciously, a series of basic elements into plausible theories, starting from my previous knowledge of the situation (with some afterthoughts). I spontaneously validate them virtually to a degree, until they are proved wrong factually. If the context permit it and I have nothing more concrete to work on, or I just don't feel the need to be intellectually honest or just rigorous, I will use them as definitive thing without taking care of exhaustive details or conclusive proofs.
Nevertheless, I am naturally often proven wrong, very wrong indeed, at least on some level, and need to adjust the consequences. I believe cautious Ni users often hide their crappy insights and wait to be more sure. They know whether a premise is sufficient or not to answer a precise situation, and they somehow know when they do not know enough, even if pride can come in the way.
I am not sure if I answer precisely your concerns, but I have the feeling that I approach them. To simplify it, when Ni is used in this way (as there are others, notably more irrational, that don't rely as much on others functions and rational planning), it consist mostly into synthesis of probabilities, and the certitude hunch thing is more a matter of taking oneself seriously about it
Interesting peek at your experience, from the inside! thanks for sharing. I can see why you're questioning being a Ti-lead(if that's what the question mark next to your type-designation is indicating).. from what you write it doesn't seem like Ti is a huge part of your conscious experience (compared to the perception functions). Especially strange to me is the fact that you sometimes think in symbols.. Se/Ni is fascinating!
For the record, I'm not really fascinated by Napier (I didn't know who she was until yesterday), as much as I'm fascinated with idea of there perhaps existing a "future self"-archetype, or sub-personality. I don't feel like it would be all that misguided to call this "adviser" for a future self though.. If there is a connection with Ni, then indeed it probably would feel like the information provided was as if it was "given" to you by someone..
I suspect that Si users also have a sub-personality that provides deep insights, but not in the form of a "future self", but instead in form of a "wise self". I think both can provide very similar-looking services to the person as a whole, but by different means, one uses the predicting abilities of Ni, the other uses the vast experience of Si.
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this!
Post by ayoungspirit on Jul 25, 2013 11:09:14 GMT -5
robinhood : I believe my post still show heavy Ti as well, and many Ni users here have not really understood my talkativeness and rely on shorter (more cryptic) answers. Ti is one of the criteria that obligate myself to revise my preliminary guess to make it more appropriate and plausible, especially when I have to present it and talk about it, so as you can imagine it can become a very energetic dance between the two. I have somewhat always of a certitude of being in the good direction, and always some material to go further, but I still question it and jump from mild certitude to mild certitude with at every time the same confidence in my driving force. That would be mostly because I try not making a big deal of always being right or efficient (except in some defensive occasion), and enjoy primarily entertaining my mind.
About the "symbols", I believe this comes from the fact that irrational introverted intuition make the information go through any possible model, even the non directly related ones, and they emerge into the judging realm as long as they are somewhat thematically/semantically related to it, or satisfying to the other functions criteria. These would be for some people very low, so they devise oracles.
Sometimes, I will think "you squeak like a bird !" before realizing that I mean mostly "you talk very quickly... with a sharp voice... and little jump like a little sparrow...and you annoy me a bit... but are cute" and this is mostly the case when the most holistic model, the one with the most common elements (whereas Ne choose seemingly more randomly by exploring more different but less strongly tied possibilities), is not from the same realm. In this case I could have said that you were talking fast, but I was to lose all the other little elements of comparisons with the sparrow, elements that I can decompose after by the way of thinking while not exactly getting it. However I don't really know if what I relate to the image was already there in my first sentence without my entire acknowledgement or if I just add it after because it somehow fit the comparison as well, and I just made up the image totally irrationally in the beginning. For long-term and responsible guess, I rely less on "symbolic" representation, except for a starting point, as it breaks more easily against reality.
On the other hand, I can't say for Si archetypes, as I am not a user myself. They might be concerned with the wisdom of a long experience, and therefore old man/woman figures and the like. My SiFe father has always been fascinated by African wise-men, perhaps more by the archetype than the actual philosophy. I can say in contrast that I react a lot to the archetype of intellectual authority figure perhaps, but I distrust a lot pre-established wisdom.
My interaction with my future self, though it can be participating from an archetypal way of thinking, is not a personal relation, but more of a neutral speculation among others. If needed, I would make the advise myself, or perhaps attribute it to myself as an afterthought. Yes, as I am struggling with it, I can see how a future adviser can be born in my spirit, but I am not really into this kind of things, perhaps because of a mix of confidence in my own ability and a sufficient lack of it to be realistic enough to listen to it. Maybe there is something more universal in here, with everyone relating differently to a common reserve of archetypes... as Jung would probably put it.
Ah.. It wasn't really clear from what I wrote, but I only referred to what you mentioned about your own function-use, and from that it seemed like you down-played your Ti/Fe-cycle a bit, I wasn't really analyzing your post for functions. Not that I would really be comfortable with doing that.. Need to learn more about the functions first!
However, you actually hit the type I believe myself to be in your last post, which is interesting! I do think I'm Ti-lead. And again, interesting insights on the "symbolic aspect" of Se/Ni..
I do have a tendency to play around with concepts until I reach something "symmetrical" (meaning a "complete" system, no contradictions, and more often than not, it's vague with little practical value). It's as if I can't put the matters to rest until I have forced system to be formed .. compulsively aching for closure. I think it's a hard indicator of judgment- and thinking-lead.
ayoungspirit Edit : regarding the opinion of Jung, it would be interesting to consider the link between archetypes and intuition but also the orientation of the latter, because it could play some role into the projection of it. Maybe introverted intuitive will rely more on projection of oneself through an archetype whereas extroverted intuitive will rely on external projection and possibly project onto another external being, seeing one specific external person, or external self double, as the incarnation of the archetype...
This caught my eye. A new angle to view how inner symbols/manifestations of sub-personalities perhaps are inherently different between the different cognitive types (or rather, functions). Interesting, I'll have to explore it!
Last Edit: Jul 25, 2013 13:05:52 GMT -5 by robinhood
Post by ayoungspirit on Jul 25, 2013 14:11:37 GMT -5
robinhood : I do have a tendency to play around with concepts until I reach something "symmetrical" (meaning a "complete" system, no contradictions, and more often than not, it's vague with little practical value). It's as if I can't put the matters to rest until I have forced system to be formed .. compulsively aching for closure. I think it's a hard indicator of judgment- and thinking-lead.
I am not sure, it could also be the mean of intuition. For me, I feel like I have no real need for closure outside of the problem at hand. Theoretical seriousness does not fit me very well, actually, but I like the feeling of a clear view.
In fact, global closure could make me somewhat anxious, uncomfortable. I am sometimes quite obsessive about my anchors, but only as long as they are the starting point for more insights to be unveiled or, slightly less, for good action to be taken. Beside, as an amateur jungian, I still consider that compulsive thinking is more akin to a primitive manifestation than a developed one.
Post by ayoungspirit on Jul 26, 2013 16:17:12 GMT -5
I found an interesting paragraph from a Dario Nardi slide show (link) regarding the influence of Ti, that could correspond with my writing style, and that could explain why heavy Ni users attribute it more to a Ti lead, as it happens to be truly a "Ti" and "Se" behaviour :
Thinking & Back-Tracking • Sensing-Thinking folks tend to evoke F3 and verbalize their thought processes as they work a problem. • Verbalizing occurs as quick sequential conclusions followed by backtracking to re-do answer. • Example: “So if A is true, and B and C are not, then D; no wait, C could mean that E is… yes, then E not D.” • For Ti folks (ESTP, ENTP, INTP, and presumably ISTP), regions F3 and F4 are highly active when engaging in problem solving. Sometimes all of Fp1, Fp2, F3 and F4 light up. • For Te folks, only Fp1 and maybe O1 (visualize problem and decide) are evoked, almost never F3 or F4
However, I only verbalize my thoughts and backtrack to arrange the sequences when I purposely write the explanation to a problem, and probably more for wording than for logic consistency. Most of my free thinking and speculating happen non-verbally, outside of paper. I get outside of my desk and wait for it to "come clear" in my mind, eventually "sleep on it" and am happy enough if I just "get it" at some point. I find actually quite taxing to write anything explicit down, and procrastinate a lot, preferring to be contemplating the flow, not even taking notes most of the time... but when I do it for worthy reason, I try to do it properly. For example, I will be really happy to finish this post and resume my lazy skimming of data, all this meticulous writing is exhausting
I am only thinking about it now, but I could find the process especially taxing because of the lack of clarity or closure. When I write, I do it in two steps. I am firstly guided by my first inspiration and candidly put down what come, sometimes a lot more than I would like, without slowing down. Then, when I eventually reach the end of my trail of thought, I do some backtracking, get new trails of thought and write more, and need more backtracking, and get in a loop. Don't misunderstand me, I like the automatic writing part, but correcting can be tedious (even if beneficial). Like I suggested, in this cases, it is really tempting to let it go.
(The Doctor : from obvious reasons, I would be curious as to know if you have any thought about that as well. Debating with you is always as interesting as it is draining from my point of view, your waves of craftily put arguments are bashing my skull )
I'm not seeing a debate in this thread. She's an 'older' NiTe female who is doing a public speaking engagement.
Disclaimer: Everything I say here is my OPINION. Please keep that in mind.
ayoungspirit: My free thinking feels more active than what I understand from how yours is. While it usually just starts without me telling it to, I am often conscious of many different threads of thoughts that are popping up in my head, with sudden ideas sometimes emerging randomly, often combining elements from the different things I've been thinking about before hand. I've never gotten sudden ideas popping into my head completely out of the blue, usually I'm thinking/exploring when it happens.. but good ideas usually come with much more ease if I've been thinking about the matter for a couple of days beforehand.
When I write my thoughts down, I often feel like I'm assembling a jigsaw puzzle.. I'm trying to combine several thoughts into a natural whole. Perhaps this is a bit different from your thought, from what you write, your process do indeed seem a bit more streamlined.. I usually have several exact points that I want to express, and often times some more points emerge as I'm in the writing process.
I procrastinate a lot too.. the process of writing things down is tiresome, because I feel like I have to refine everything I want to express. When I first am in the process, thing loosens up and come forth easier. I do feel like precision is important, though, and often backtrack/edit to make things more condensed and clear.
I can't really relate to how non-verbal thinking would work.. I don't know if I do it much or not.. I've been curios about it, but I'm just not sure.. I do sometimes use models in my head, but I think that a lot of my thinking is verbal.
Here are some more thoughts on Ni/Se that relates to the theme in this thread. Some relevant posts by Erifrail:
Auburn said: There is more "context" that is considered, in Ni-Leads, while TeNi take more into consideration the principle. This is why Ray Kurzweil (probably NiTe, but NiFe not impossible) is more keen on foretelling the actual coming trends and causalities in the context of the world to arrive. This is the same reason NiFe Steve Jobs was able to predict and tailor to the rising needs and evolving tastes of the population and successfully market Mac. There is a bit of reference in the MBTI to "prophetic" power attributed to Ni, and this isn't precisely right. The insight of Ni is not a gut feeling, it is not something that arises from the unconscious. It is moreso a heightened awareness of the inevitability of causality. It is like seeing a person tripping in mid-fall and knowing they'll faceplant in .25 seconds. That "sense" of the inevitability occurs for Ni-leads in little bursts specific to each context, each time Ni reacts and reflects/recalls, but the span across which that sense expands may be much broader than for other types. (link)
Perhaps the "little bursts" mentioned here is what is referred as hunches in the daily language?
Projecting a pattern forward = 4,5,7,10,14,19,25,32,40,49... (the pattern is to add one more each time). The gaps of unknown territory are filled with an estimation (blue) by projecting an array of known trends.
I wonder if a Ni-user well-versed in the world of numbers would actually be able to just "come up" the next number in line.. without having to first discover the pattern and then deducing the next number. I wonder if the person would instead just get flashes of what the next number in would have to be (sense of the inevitability), just from observing the row for a brief time. Is this what is meant by what Erifrail writes here? Of course, the question assumes that the person is not consciously aware of what the pattern is, and that he is not so familiar with the row that it has become a part of his "automatic memory" (like how many people have learned the decimal multiplication table by heart).
Not too long ago, a friend of mine and I sat down and did some of those puzzles you see in IQ-tests. At the time I was maybe two months into MBTI, and had started thinking that people truly think differently, not just more or less efficiently. My friend is pretty bright, good at solving insight problems, and I thought it would be interesting to see if he would solve the tasks differently than I would. To begin with, we were solving the tasks quite similarly, both of us were able to discover what the pattern in the puzzle was, and from that, deduce which of the option had to be the answer. But after a while we reach a puzzle that I was able to discover the pattern in, and he was not. I, of course, knew what the answer had to be, because the pattern was clear before my eyes after some exploration, and all I had to do was deduction. He on the other hand, apparently didn't have clue... until I asked him to just guess what he thought the solution was. And low and behold, out of the six possible answers, he picked the right one. I was amazed, and wondered whether it was sheer luck, or if he actually had an idea behind picking that exact solution (whenever I guess, it truly is random.. I'm unable to solve the puzzles without discovering the pattern).. He gave me some obscure explanation that he didn't seem too sure of himself.. pointed at some "random" elements here and there that made very little sense to me. The pattern of the puzzle wasn't a very hard one, it was just the matter of discovering it that was hard, but the cues he had looked at to solve the puzzle seemed very different from what I had found and looked at. It was a pretty eye-opening experience, and pointed out to me that there are real differences in how people problem solve.. I am assuming that he is a high-Ni user.
The Doctor: Admittedly, the post went a bit outside what the title of the thread suggests... But as I've written somewhere earlier in the post, it was more the contents of the video that I was curios about, and their implications regarding to CT and functions, than the actual person in the video. I'd say we've been exploring/sharing our experiences, rather than debating.. I guess it's meta-thinking we've been doing? Hehe.
Post by ayoungspirit on Jul 27, 2013 9:13:05 GMT -5
robinhood : very interesting, your process still is really close to mine in a lot of aspects. I can mildly relate to the jigsaw of multiple sequences and need to backtrack to refine what I write, like I said, but I mostly go as far as needed for speech impact. Previous contextualization and study helps me to have insight as well, very much, but the final thought not always come from direct examination of it, sometimes it comes from nowhere, while showering. This is quite difficult to distinct though, as some of this process is characterized as "gut"-like and I still verbalize a bit, sometimes even without realizing it. Precise neurological definitions could help distinguish these different kind of "intuition".
For the standardized tests, when I was younger, I was used to block in front of it, waiting for the response to pop like in the easier questions, but as I grew up, I learned manually to go further in decomposing it, a bit. I never liked them very much though as I feel more comfortable in giving insight on things that naturally inspire me more than in solving imposed puzzles.
More Dario Nardi material from here :link and link