No announcement yet.

Ne: We're not all happy go lucky - Response to Auburn's description

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ne: We're not all happy go lucky - Response to Auburn's description

    NOTE: I also posted this in CT forum in response to this description. I thought it might be worth it to also share it here.
    Distraction & Escapism:
    Last edited by Vive; 02-10-2020, 04:55 PM. Reason: Phrasing
    "Distress, whether psychic, physical, or intellectual, need not at all produce nihilism.
    Such distress always permits a variety of interpretations."


    Oh oh Vive

    I've always had the feeling that some of this description was better for NeTi than for NeFi. NeFi are often serious, intense, 'deep diving'.... for instance Russel Brand. What do you think, Teatime , devo , MountainFlower ?


      I didn't get from the description that Ne is all "happy go lucky." I just read it as a list of several ways Ne can manifest, puns and humor being among them. From my own observations, I tend to notice most goofy humor coming from Si leads with ego in Ne.


      • Vive
        Vive commented
        Editing a comment
        Fair enough, it's just that I have the idea that the description should be describing the essence of Ne along with possible manifestations. My thing is that I don't relate to the essence or archetype being communicated in that description, at all and the manifestations are hit or miss, but mostly miss and I thougt there were so many 'misses', because the description seems to describe those who are generally more postively oriented, or perhaps also individuals that are more seelie, as I am also unseelie.



      • Vive
        Vive commented
        Editing a comment

      • devo
        devo commented
        Editing a comment

      • Vive
        Vive commented
        Editing a comment
        Whoops, I had not understood you agreed with me, at least not about the shortcomings of description. Yeah, I agree, I also feel description is going out of its bounds. I'd prefer if it was more limited to cognition and that they afterwards would describe the possible ways it could manifest, so one could recognize what that cognition can be like in action. This way it can still be written in an appealing manner, but it stays closer to a description of cognition.

      I'm an ENTP. I haven't seen the original post you're referring to, but here's my response to your response.

      seem to be spot on.

      I think daydreaming is part and parcel of Ne. It's literal Imagination Land. Rainbows and talking dinosaurs and fairy godmothers etc. Like I would be extremely unsurprised if most cartoon creators are NPs, especially ENPs. Forget being a kid. I still do this as an adult pushing 40.

      Tinkering sounds more Ti to me, but it depends on what you mean by it specifically.

      I do associate Ne with a lack of concentration, but really only if the topic isn't interesting to the Ne user. I focused on my studies well as a child, mainly because I found most things my teachers said to be interesting. Put me in a room where they're discussing something I give two shits about, though, and I will be in said Imagination Land the entire time. When I try to read a textbook, it takes me forever because I get curious about something the author said and have to look it up, or I have to organize my thoughts on it via Ti, or I get distracted by something more interesting than stuffy words printed on a white sheet. Reading IS painful for me.

      By contrast my sister is an INFP, and she has far worse problems with ADD than I do, to the point that she can't tell time or count money because they studied that in the 1st grade before she got diagnosed with ADD.

      Individual mileage may vary with this.

      Not totally sure what is meant by this actually. Would need to read the original.

      I can tell you...I sometimes find things in the environment that spark a story in my, I see a dead squirrel on the ground, and I start imagining his squirrel wife and children wondering where daddy is and calling out his name, and this whole drama unfolds in my head. Then I'm imagining what the squirrel did as a profession, all his squirrel friends, etc...this whole other world unfolds.

      I don't do it on purpose or as an exercise, just something stirs inside me; the story then needs to be imagined.

      I would say this refers to Ne's ability to take in a whole scene almost instantaneously, and know how to act on it. It's true of me. My brain like...looks in about 15 places all at once. Kind of like how they teach you to skim a text, well this is skimming an environment. It's a 3-dimensional version of the same. So I often pick up on things while people are still struggling through the first or second sentence.

      I wouldn't call it mass absorption. Actually, I have to study the pieces in depth to really get the data. This is more about getting an overall sense of understanding of whatever I'm looking at, within seconds.

      Yeah, I'm not an especially funny person. I don't give two shits about puns (otherwise very verbal though). Parodies or satire, maybe--it's about taking the essence of the story and finding parallels in other situations. Ne is very good at making those connections and linking everything, so it does stand to reason.

      I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Ne IS very optimistic by its nature. I am a very negative person myself, very sharp in my assessments as to why your idea is stupid, very gloomy, ill-tempered, pessimistic, suspicious of others' malevolence, black-hearted, and the rest of it. This is not an exaggeration--I've been scolded all my life for being dark, negative, sinister, "toxic", a downer, and unpleasant to be around.

      Yet the Ne is up there, making Imagination Land stories, thinking of the next adventure, always on the lookout for the next shiny thing. Visions of a better world or utopia. It doesn't tend to start brainstorming negatives, because it is too entranced with it's shiny object on the hill. The negatives arise for other reasons.

      Distraction & Escapism: Again, I haven't read the original post. So I don't know everything you're referencing. Still, as a quality of character, no one would call me an escapist. They wouldn't even say that I am not distractible--when I make up my mind on something, I will latch on and work unendingly towards whatever end, even if it takes years. I'm actually seen as stubborn and inflexible (this is another side to Ne though--tunnel vision toward one's dreams or goals). I have true vision, and I will strive to make my vision a reality.

      On a day to day basis, though, I do tend to move as the spirit calls me. Like adult ADD. Pick up one thing, think of another thing, put it down, go to the other thing and think of a 3rd one part way there...etc. lol. If I don't like what I'm doing, I'll put it down and find something more fun. Internet classes are FATAL for me, because of the infinitude of things I can study with a click of a mouse BESIDES the boring reading assignment on a glaring screen in front of me. No one can make me do something I don't want to do.

      I think overall these qualities are referring to mental processes, and not necessarily deeper qualities of character. If I actually seemed like the stereotype of an Ne-dom...well people would probably like me more. Instead, people notice other things about me first. Ne is just what my brain does. It leaves a distinct signature, but it isn't everything.

      Again, I haven't seen the original description. Hoping you can direct me there as searches repeatedly yielded nothing. I can add more information later, of there are any takers.


      Ok, it takes forever to load on my phone. That may be what happened before and how I overlooked the description. Shrug.

      Vive, a proper response.

      I thought it captured something overall and was by and large...not word-for-word accurate, but it did say something about my mind upon skimming it through. I get why you feel it's too happy go lucky. I feel like it's very..."La Di Dah, I can't cope with real life".

      It doesn't describe all aspects of Ne, it simply describes some idiosyncrasies that many Ne-users have. How do I phrase it? I didn't love this description, but Ne actually does do a lot of what they're saying, as a process rather than a personality type.

      I'll put the areas I would critique below.

      Beyond the rather pretentious opening, this basically what I said in mine.

      It's all true of me, except me showing inconsideration of others' time. Also, I'm not greatly prone to worry and overthinking, and I feel like it's misleading to suggest Ne somehow leads to anxiety.

      Serendipity & Flash Visions
      Yeah, I have no idea what this means. I don't experience clairvoyance in the sense they describe it. I mean they write about it unendingly, and none of it is a familiar process to me.

      I really think this is Ti. Stop me if I'm wrong.

      Puns & Humor
      Yeah not in love with this section. Some of this sounds more like Verbal Intelligence than Ne per se, although I think that Ne in general is verbally gifted. I don't think I personally am particularly known for this type of humor. My humor is more just being a goof in general.

      Imitations & Parodies
      Didn't love this either. I mean yes, the process of making connections is true, but I think the stuff about acting and adopting new personas is just a little over the line.

      Distraction & Escapism
      Yes, I found this exquisitely irritating. Just to be clear. I know about life's hardships. Physical and emotional pain. No, my first response is not to go into LaLaLand. My first response is to go hoofing into high gear and try to settle my problems. If I can't, I become increasingly frustrated, angry, and even violent toward the problem. I brood. I mull the problem and contemplate strategies for revenge. I dwell in things. Or I lie there and stoically endure the suffering of my body. My attitude is that the only way out is through, and so I endure each day to the best of my ability. I will never give up.

      I live in reality, not in some escapist fantasy. I actually have a strong contempt for those who fiddle while the city burns.

      This supposed aspect of Ne crops up with regularity in Socionics descriptions re: Se and is pretty much why I can't ever get into the theory (is this article based on socionics per chance?). NO I'm not some fragile lil thing that can't cope with life and fears my inner darkness or whatever. Puh-lease.

      What I will confess to is doing everything other than one small task at hand, because it looks too drudgy and I don't want to. It's not worth my time to get motivated about until there's ENORMOUS PRESSURE on me to finish it. I have real trouble doing things that aren't big enough to warrant my attention. For example, I've spent two weeks unable to type up a syllabus. In part because living circumstances make this hard. In part, because literally everything else is more interesting. Like critiquing this description, for instance.

      It's accurate in that respect.

      I thought this was, by and large, a decent metaphor for the overall mental process of Ne. Not for my "personality" as such, but for what Ne represents.

      I do NOT agree with the Dark Side. I'm not sure how I would assign the dark side of Ne, but not the the Alice and Wonderland type experience they describe. I've had true mental clusterfucks before, and I never once felt the impulse to escape, reality never became monstrous, etc. Really, the downside of Ne, for me, has been more like some twisted version of Si.

      Anyway. That's my 2 cents. Not saying it was awful, but since you seemed curious about the areas of disagreement.


        I'm not an Ne ego type, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I've only skimmed through what you've written, as I cannot process so much information that's just out there without direct, tangible reference. From my vast experience with Ne leads, I've never viewed Ne to be happy-go-lucky, but overwhelmed with so much information and have difficulty with making decisions. Ne is a childish function, imaginative and irresponsible, but not completely worthless. Much of the world's innovation is due to Ne, but the main issue is that Ne badly needs structure in order for it to be utilized in any real capacity. Ne Ti is easier to reconcile because Ti is rigid logical structure which can funnel Ne into making connections that logically exist, so they're not just pulling randomness out of their asses. Ne Fi is terribly random and allows Ne to run rampant, often communicating in a round about and indirect way. It's very common to see Ne Fi say contradictory things in the same sentence such as they're "logical but also emotional" or similar attitudes where they show how little they understand the concept of preference, let alone cognitive preference. There is often paradoxically a display of disregard for typology in general because "you can't fit individuals into a box." The correct answer is, yes you can and this is all that typology is doing, in fact. However, this doesn't diminish individuality, but rather, structures it. It's that very concept that Fi instinctually rebels against, whereas Ti sees the value and grasps it. Ne isn't happy-go-lucky because it operates on not having any limits and if there's no structure, then there's no definition, nothing is for sure. If you cannot be sure, that creates the apprehension, not a carefree, yippie skippy attitude.

        The types that would correctly be happy-go-lucky would be Se leads. The ability to see what's there and accept it for the physical limits gives a sure, decisive framework.


          What do you mean by information that's out there without tangible reference? I'm not entirely sure; I listed my thoughts, perspective and own behavior, to contrast it with what was written on the CT website. Did I say something confusing or something that was convoluted? I'd be more than happy to explain it or have a look at parts that I might have written in a vague manner.

          What makes you see Ne as childish and irresponsible?

          I think really any perceiving function badly needs structure from some kind of judging function, otherwise a person would just keep perceiving things, chase impulses and someone would just never settle their mind on something, never be able to limit themselves.

          Fi structures Ne just like Ti would structure Ne (the same applies to an Se dominant). You say it allows Ne to run rampant, I say it just does the opposite. Fi restricts, turns people inwards, makes them reflect. It lets them pay attention to their ethical reasoning, cue them into signals their emotions are giving them, it helps make judgments that let people take a stance regarding different issues or situations.

          I can't speak for others, but I personally don't mind being put into a box, but it matters to me how much putting someone in that box says about someone. Does the system that define the boxes have a sense of validity or reliability. The CT description mostly listed behavior and was basically generally written in the format: Person A that is Ne dominant does B and thinks in way C and if I don't do B and don't think way C at least the behavioral description is off. I would prefer if Aburn on CT minimized the amount of behavioral descriptions or at least gave them more nuance, perhaps describing different variations of the type.

          I'm not quite getting how Se has more or less structure than Ne. Ne also isn't random, admittedly, it can produce very hard to follow tangents, but it still works by using association and pattern recognition.

          I personally think some happy-go-lucky people could be Ne dominants. Ne is good at seeing potential everywhere, but potential doesn't necessarily have to be positive. So, depending on the person I think you might see very different expressions. Some being more happy-go-lucky, some being the opposite of that.
          Last edited by Vive; 09-03-2020, 06:46 AM.
          "Distress, whether psychic, physical, or intellectual, need not at all produce nihilism.
          Such distress always permits a variety of interpretations."