# Is all Ni like the descriptions?



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I have heard Ni is the most misunderstood of all the functions. I don't really understand it myself, even after having read countless threads and descriptions. Is possible to be an Ni dominant type without relating to most descriptions of Ni? What if you're not future-oriented and don't have "gut feelings", but seeing all perspectives is so automatic for you that it would be hard not to do so?


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

Of course you can be Ni dominant and not relate to it. The thing about dominant functions (more so for introverts than extraverts) is that the dominant function comes so naturally that, most of the time, the user probably wouldn't even notice that they're using it. It's so much a part of them that, before they learn about this system, they either believe that others are weird for not using it as easily or that they (the user) is weird *because* they use it so naturally. This applies to most, if not all, of the functions when in the dominant position.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

The descriptions stink in capturing Ni accurately. I have no reservations in saying this. Blech. I think Jung's description is the most accurate (otherwise, any insightful person who can see from different perspectives will think they are an Ni dom, when in fact, they might not even consciously use this function at all). This act has nothing to do with Ni (that's largely internet folklore and misinterpretation of official sources) - Ni is just a way of explaining the mentality some people confidently lead with to try to "peer behind the scenes" for the underlying possibilities/potentialities of something from a metaphysical perspective - sort of a source of metaphysical explanations for otherwise ontologically universal sources of phenomena (thus, it always has to be shadowed by Se - objective sensation awareness and not a "see things the way I want to see them" perspective like Si).


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Se - objective sensation awareness and not a "see things the way I want to see them" perspective like Si).


That's how Si works? That explains a few things...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Si is more detail-oriented, not as focused on physical superficialities and surfaces as Se, since after all, it takes a "subject" with personal interests, etc. to determine what "special" details should occupy their consciousness in terms of consideration of them. Details are in the eye of the beholder if they are inconsequential enough to the final picture of the sensual or aesthetic reality. The become impressions of their own and get woven into subjective content and associations of the person's mind. It's sort of like a pixelation of sensory impressions to create more of an atmosphere or impressionistic resonance/essence of the image. They tend to have inner sensory ideals that are generated firstly with regard to "what they're seeing" rather than with regards to "what can be seen."


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I found a description that actually makes sense.  (Source: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/14293-ni-mapping-between-signs-meaning.html)



> Ni is orienting yourself by an explicit representation of the mapping between signs and meaning. For example, "This dark-stained mahogany table is supposed to make me think the owner is upper-class" or "We put north at the top of maps (rather than, say, the bottom or the right), because northern countries traditionally had more power, and we perceive 'higher on the page' to mean 'more important'." From an Ni standpoint, one doesn't feel oriented until one can articulate explicitly what are the signs one is supposed to look at and what are the meanings one is supposed to take from them.
> 
> Because the mental space that Ni "lives in" is the world of all possible ways of mapping signs to meanings, Ni leads you to consider not only the accepted ways of mapping signs to meanings, but others. For example, why couldn't dark-stained mahogany mean "lower class"? For example, what if instead of viewing failing a test as an occasion for shame, we viewed it as an occasion for celebration? How might our lives change if we merely rewired the interpretations we are giving to things?
> 
> ...


This is exactly how I think. I see how this could be described as "seeing from all perspectives", but I also see now that that's an oversimplified way of describing it. It's more like a perspective that is looking at perspective itself to see where and how it is being influenced. I always thought this was Ti analysis.


----------



## Konigsberg (May 10, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> I found a description that actually makes sense.  (Source: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...s/14293-ni-mapping-between-signs-meaning.html)
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly how I think. I see how this could be described as "seeing from all perspectives", but I also see now that that's an oversimplified way of describing it. It's more like a perspective that is looking at perspective itself to see where and how it is being influenced. I always thought this was Ti analysis.


Hmm I don't relate too much to this kind of explanation. Here, in this thread, is what I think covers Ni the most:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/56401-down-rabbit-hole-introverted-intuiting.html


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Konigsberg said:


> Hmm I don't relate too much to this kind of explanation. Here, in this thread, is what I think covers Ni the most:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/56401-down-rabbit-hole-introverted-intuiting.html


Great description! I can relate to that one too. I have had very similar thoughts in the past and concluded that the only thing we can know is that we perceive. But even that is based on the assumption that we exist and that perception exists. And then I might have to go into a whole thing about what "existence" means, otherwise I'm just playing with words.


----------



## Mayura (Sep 12, 2011)

Konigsberg said:


> Hmm I don't relate too much to this kind of explanation. Here, in this thread, is what I think covers Ni the most:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/56401-down-rabbit-hole-introverted-intuiting.html


That was an amazing description of Ni. Thanks for linking.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

If it helps, I can add to this menagerie of Ni musings, some of the thoughts I had as a kid, and made good use of only Ni, before I discovered my other functions. 

I remember, being in the single digit age, thinking about my existence, and subjectiveness. I used to often think, "I am me... but everyone is me, when you really think of it, and everyone can be 'you', and no matter where I go, I'm always 'here' and someone else is always 'there' so, really I can never be 'there' because as soon as I reach 'there', 'there' becomes 'here', and if my parents never got together, would I have been assigned a different life, or would I not exist?... and why does the sky have to be on the top and the street on the bottom? Why can't it be the other way around? and why is it that the amount of numbers never ends, but the amount of letters of the alphabet does? Can there possibly be as many letters as there are numbers if people kept making them up? I wonder what it would be like to not know English as thus, not know what, say, the word 'orange' means." That's all I can think of for now. I didn't really have a lot of friends as a kid. Gee I wonder why.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

@_dulcinea_

lol, that reminds me of when i was 5 (6?), i asked my mom:

"if the first caveman ever didn't cry out when he touched fire, would we have learned to cry out when we were in pain? would feeling something just be 'feeling _something_'? would hot and cold have no connotations other than something that kept us safe? would we have no emotional reaction to any sense stimulus, in a way that would just let us recognize what was happening without attaching any sort of learned behavior?" (of course, the wording would have been different--i was 5'ish--but the meaning is the same)

it's hard to tell with young children though. reality isn't ingrained in their minds yet, so a child may be more likely to skip over 'reality checks'... although, if that sort of mentality did carry over and form the perspective that you live your life by today, then...?

edit: although, this sounds more introverted than anything else. i think being turned more inward can cause one to pay less attention to "reality" or an objective standard.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Konigsberg said:


> Hmm I don't relate too much to this kind of explanation. Here, in this thread, is what I think covers Ni the most:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/56401-down-rabbit-hole-introverted-intuiting.html


No offense, but your description of Ni seems very similar to what the post you rejected describes.

How so?



> From an Ni standpoint, *one doesn't feel oriented until one can articulate explicitly what are the signs one is supposed to look at and what are the meanings one is supposed to take from them*.


* So, Ni points out that there are existing assumptions.



> That is, an Ni orientation leads you to *describe the assumptions and rules that a given system of thought or perception is following*.


* Same point reiterated.



Abraxas said:


> Everything begins with the following assumption: everything begins with an assumption. Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. If an assumption works, then it serves a purpose. Purpose is arbitrary.


* Just like the above definition of Ni, you are pointing out that knowledge is assumed. Then, you go one step further stating that even that is an assumption.

So to clarify, in your description, you're not directly defining the assumptions of a particular idea; rather you are stating how, in general, your view of reality recognizes the assumption that all information is actually assumptions organized into assumed structures. Upon recognition of this, there is only the choice of which you use. To me, that's not at all different from how Thomson describes INJs:

“*Introverted Intuitives don’t think this way. For INJs, patterns aren’t ‘out there’ in the world, waiting to be discovered. They’re part of us—they way we make sense of the riot of information and energy impinging on our systems. A disease syndrome is a useful construct, but that’s all it is—an aggregate of observations attached to a label, telling us what to see and how to deal with it” (Thomson 225).

“Given their real-life consequences, mental constructs don’t strike INJs as imaginary or irrelevant. They’re merely arbitrary, derived from a particular view of life. For this reason, they can trap us into holding that view—say, that physicians are in the business of cure rather than prevention—without being aware of its effects” (Thomson 225).

* She uses the example of a list of symptoms as a subject system to which knowledge is attached for a purpose.
*
Moreover, this quote reminds me of what she says about INTJs:

"


Abraxas said:


> Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. If an assumption works, then it serves a purpose. Purpose is arbitrary. Ideas are tools - a means to an end.


“Consider James Hillman’s understanding of the soul as ‘a perspective rather than a substance, a viewpoint toward things rather than a thing itself’. This is a typically INTJ antidefinition. *Such types may expend a great deal of time attempting to winnow the actual logic of accepted theories and formulations from expedient or merely limited assumptions ” (Thomson 241).
*
“*This sense of underlying structure and meaning leads INTJs to value both elegance of form and subtlety of expression. Nothing exists that can’t bear reediting and paring down to its essential components. The connections INTJs perceive among very different areas of knowledge may be sufficient to convince them they’re headed in the right direction, even when they can’t explain what they’re after” (Thomson 241).

"This is a pretty fair description of the INTJ’s basic attitude. Fundamental truth is something different from expressed knowledge, which is always a fiction of one sort or another. If a theory works, it doesn’t matter who supports it or what anyone thinks it means. If it doesn’t, why bother with it?” (240).*
* Essentially, for INTJs, a theory is only important in so far as it is workable.

Jung's descriptions are interesting, but I've always felt they are lacking. For example, I can recognize myself in the Introverted Feeling description, but at the same time, it mostly focuses on surface behaviors (http://personalitycafe.com/infp-articles/70527-jung-introverted-feeling-type.html; he essentially says Introverted Feeling women feel deeply, but very seldom express themselves and appear cold) not the actual mental phenomena. It's a good starting point, but it honestly just feels like a stereotype. Likewise, Jung's description of Introverted Intuition does seem to say much other than it leads people to have intense visions and the people who experience them have difficulty understanding how they are relevant. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I strongly prefer Lenore Thomson's analysis/interpretation for all of the functions. She provides a very structured way of describing how these things occur. I know her analysis, especially concerning left-brain versus right-brain isn't what's supported by other research, but it still makes more sense to me logically 

That being said, I don't think there's really a consistent, "official" definitions for any of the functions, so, until further notice I say...stick with whatever floats your boat.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

What bugs me is when people conflate Ni and Ne. Their only similarity is in the word Intuition. 

For one, there's nothing mystical about Ni. There's nothing magical or fantastical about it either. Sometimes it looks and feels magical because most people are fascinated by the idea of grasping at "what is unseen." 

Ni is a lot of different things. One thing it can be is like a sped up version of deductive reasoning. I learned to backtrack my Ni years ago, so I can, almost always, take an intuitive leap of logic and trace it back to its source. I then realize how logical or nonsensical some of my reasoning is. For example, if I look at a stranger and think "they are a T." That is Ni at work. I don't know that they are a T and my reasons for thinking it may be based in an accurate observation or complete nonsense, but I never stopped and thought, "Hmm, I wonder if they are a T. Let me examine whether they fit the model of being a T." The thought just appeared in my head, not as an idea but as an observation. As though type is the color of the sky and I'm observing it with my eyes.

Ni can lead you. I've heard the analogy of a sailboat, which I think is a good reflection of how it works in a leading role. You're floating around; you can make an effort to direct where you go, but for the most part you're like a part of the sea, letting the waves take you where they take you. You aren't carving a path so much as you're letting the path carve itself for you and you're simply at the helm ensuring that you don't smash into rocks.

Ni looks to the future, but that doesn't mean you have to be mentally living in the future if you lead with Ni. All it means is that, for the most part, you're going to be viewing life through a lens of what you think is going to exist after this moment, as opposed to viewing life through a lens of what is at this moment. This is why it's so important for INJs to take some time for Se. 

I doubt I've covered everything, but that's a few ways it can manifest itself.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> What bugs me is when people conflate Ni and Ne. Their only similarity is in the word Intuition.
> 
> For one, there's nothing mystical about Ni. There's nothing magical or fantastical about it either. Sometimes it looks and feels magical because most people are fascinated by the idea of grasping at "what is unseen."


Maybe you don't know what Mystical means?

Ni and Ne similarity in the word Intuition is um idk a big similarity.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Ni is very much a mixed bag for me. Some of what I read about it I relate to very strongly, some things I'm not sure I relate to at all, and some things make no sense to me whatsoever. Since there are some things I relate to strongly, and it's not required to relate to all or even most descriptions to be an Ni user, it is _possible _that I could be an Ni-dom (INFJ). 

But how can I know if what I think is Ni isn't just Ne + Ti? I want to figure this out but the more I read, the more I get lost in a web of ambiguity. The things I read raise more questions than they answer. I'm looking for a definitive answer, yet I know I'll never find one, because in typology there are simply no such things, no formulas and no guarantees.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

myjazz said:


> Maybe you don't know what Mystical means?


Mystical : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence

Yep, I know what mystical means. Do you?



myjazz said:


> Ni and Ne similarity in the word Intuition is um idk a big similarity.


Tell me how then.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> Mystical : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence


Then you should also know that Mystical is used as Unintelligible, cryptic , having an import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence, beyond ordinary understanding and mysterious. 
I would agree though that the typical New Age wishy washy crap associated with Ni is completely out of character.

Not to mention that your example you gave is not so much of Ni, more so of an T or possibly even an F function. You would probably also disagree that Ni is also imagery associated?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

myjazz said:


> Then you should also know that Mystical is used as Unintelligible, cryptic , having an import not apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence, beyond ordinary understanding and mysterious.
> I would agree though that the typical New Age wishy washy crap associated with Ni is completely out of character.


Ok. ?



myjazz said:


> Not to mention that your example you gave is not so much of Ni, more so of an T or possibly even an F function. You would probably also disagree that Ni is also imagery associated?


Which example are you referring to and why?

And maybe it can be. Do you mean as in image recognition? Or something else?


----------



## thunder (Jun 15, 2011)

Silveresque said:


> *But how can I know if what I think is Ni isn't just Ne + Ti?* I want to figure this out but the more I read, the more I get lost in a web of ambiguity. The things I read raise more questions than they answer. I'm looking for a definitive answer, yet I know I'll never find one, because in typology there are simply no such things, no formulas and no guarantees.


OK, someone kick me if what I'm writing makes no sense or is incorrect, seeing as I'm neither an INTP with Ti+Ne nor am I a Ni-dom (so my understanding of Ni is based more on a tert-Ni experience). That said, from my understanding,

Ti+Ne would look at one thing, and Ne would see the possibilities that it contains, and for the possibilities, Ti deconstructs/analyzes them to their premises and for their validity. In a way, this describes why Ti+Ne is good at inventing or creating new theories -- from what is given to them, they are able to see what could be, and then it is broken down and tested for its veracity/validity/viability (haha).

in contrast,

Ni would look at one thing, and see the essence of it and what that implies in the current moment and in projecting forward into the future. In a way, this is like looking at the manner in which a company is operating and seeing that the it isn't going to work out in the larger perspective of the sector the company is operating within and the factors that are affecting it. 


yes/no, xNTPs and Ni-doms?


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

thunder said:


> OK, someone kick me if what I'm writing makes no sense or is incorrect, seeing as I'm neither an INTP with Ti+Ne nor am I a Ni-dom (so my understanding of Ni is based more on a tert-Ni experience). That said, from my understanding,
> 
> Ti+Ne would look at one thing, and Ne would see the possibilities that it contains, and for the possibilities, Ti deconstructs/analyzes them to their premises and for their validity. In a way, this describes why Ti+Ne is good at inventing or creating new theories -- from what is given to them, they are able to see what could be, and then it is broken down and tested for its veracity/validity/viability (haha).
> 
> ...


This sounds consistent with my understanding of Ni and Ne. I do both though. :/


----------



## thunder (Jun 15, 2011)

Silveresque said:


> This sounds consistent with my understanding of Ni and Ne. I do both though. :/


Does one come more easily than the other? Or, does one, after doing it for a long time, drain you?

Another thing that I've looked at regarding Ni vs Ne is that Ni takes multiple perspectives to one thing and pulls bits and pieces together to form a conclusion, whereas Ne takes one thing and branches out to multiple possibilities. 

Perhaps a way of determining between Ni and Ne is to look at whether you use Se or Si? //sorry, this is starting to get off topic to this thread...perhaps @_Silveresque_ , you should answer these questions in your type me thread? //


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> For example, if I look at a stranger and think "they are a T." That is Ni at work. I don't know that they are a T and my reasons for thinking it may be based in an accurate observation or complete nonsense, but I never stopped and thought, "Hmm, I wonder if they are a T. Let me examine whether they fit the model of being a T." The thought just appeared in my head, not as an idea but as an observation. As though type is the color of the sky and I'm observing it with my eyes.


Sorry about that I didn't clarify which part,

This part can be concluded to being Ni can and probably is T or F or see below*, just like you example towards your original. You don't intuitivity know the sky is a certain color you learned or taught the sky is such color. You don't need to go over the color chart and give a full long detail and figure that out, but doesn't mean this is Intuition Just *common sense. 
The defining factor of the function usage is within how it comes about, for example a common generalized concept is how Ti suppose to look like as well as other functions which would make that more on the % of an Judging function.
Of course I am not saying it is either or but by your example that leans more into a Judging area, T or F.


----------



## oxygen forest (Jan 5, 2012)

Sometimes I think that Ni is so subjective that it really should have multiple or sub-definitions. It feels too big and messy to be under one title, and I think that's where a lot of the repetitive discussions on what it is come from.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

thunder said:


> OK, someone kick me if what I'm writing makes no sense or is incorrect, seeing as I'm neither an INTP with Ti+Ne nor am I a Ni-dom (so my understanding of Ni is based more on a tert-Ni experience). That said, from my understanding,
> 
> Ti+Ne would look at one thing, and Ne would see the possibilities that it contains, and for the possibilities, Ti deconstructs/analyzes them to their premises and for their validity. In a way, this describes why Ti+Ne is good at inventing or creating new theories -- from what is given to them, they are able to see what could be, and then it is broken down and tested for its veracity/validity/viability (haha).
> 
> ...


I am not touching you...nor kicking you.

Just to point out a few thing's that causes a lot of confusion for instance Ne and Ni yes that is Intuition is about possibilities in a way. Ni isn't about the "future" just as much as Ne is. When one separate's the two "possibilities" and "future" as belonging to one or the other cause's a rift in understanding what the function's are.


----------



## thunder (Jun 15, 2011)

myjazz said:


> Just to point out a few thing's that causes a lot of confusion for instance Ne and Ni yes that is Intuition is about possibilities in a way. Ni isn't about the "future" just as much as Ne is. *When one separate's the two "possibilities" and "future" as belonging to one or the other cause's a rift in understanding what the function's are.*


That is very true. Both Ne and Ni are about possibilities and the "future" in their own ways -- hmm... the way the two are separated in my mind makes so much sense, but when I try to write it out, it comes out...not precise enough. :-\ My Ti not be happy... 

What are your thoughts on the following? --

When Ni perceives information, it looks at it through the lens of "What is the essence of what we are looking at, and what does this imply?" In the process of answering these questions, Ni considers/sees multiple possibilities and "futures".

When Ne perceives information, it looks at it through the lens of "What new things does this lead to, or can be considered given what we are looking at?" In the process of answering these questions, Ne considers/sees multiple possibilities and "futures".


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@thunder
One way to make the distinction to me is, in what direction or way is the possibilities directed. With Ni this is normally not told or mentioned and even a lot of times noticed. For it is subjective like @oxygen forest mentioned can be to subjective, which is partly why Jung mentioned "if" an Ni Type can or willing to put forth their Ni in an outward manner ,such as for society, can be very beneficial. In a way just like Ti or any other Introverted function.
I will kinda cheat an mention what Jung said about this,"chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious"
of course through image's.


----------



## thunder (Jun 15, 2011)

myjazz said:


> One way to make the distinction to me is, *in what direction or way is the possibilities directed*. With Ni this is normally not told or mentioned and even a lot of times noticed. .... I will kinda cheat an mention what Jung said about this,"chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious"
> of course through image's.


Yes. This was on my mind as I was trying to express in writing the distinction between the two. I had been looking more for feedback on whether or not it was a possible and accurate way of considering the difference between the two, seeing as our OP @Silveresque asked about Ti+Ne vs Ni.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

myjazz said:


> Sorry about that I didn't clarify which part,
> 
> This part can be concluded to being Ni can and probably is T or F or see below*, just like you example towards your original. You don't intuitivity know the sky is a certain color you learned or taught the sky is such color. You don't need to go over the color chart and give a full long detail and figure that out, but doesn't mean this is Intuition Just *common sense.
> The defining factor of the function usage is within how it comes about, for example a common generalized concept is how Ti suppose to look like as well as other functions which would make that more on the % of an Judging function.
> Of course I am not saying it is either or but by your example that leans more into a Judging area, T or F.


Oh, that part, ok. I have a feeling my sky analogy was not the most amazing thing ever. 

As far as I'm concerned, Ni can draw a conclusion from something. That doesn't mean it's what you'd call "judging" though - I mean, if you put your hand on something and you instinctively think "warm," is that "judging"? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about and why I classify it as Ni. 

The sky analogy and the hand analogy are attempts to explain in terms of how Se works. Se heavily uses the five senses and Ni can feel like a sixth sense at times. In the example you reference, I'm talking about observation but it's not necessarily an observation that the observer is aware of - the observer can get the insight without looking at what brought him to the insight. 

Does that make sense?


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

I came here trying to understand the Ni function, too, and I have a feeling that I get it now. More precisely, I have a feeling that I have felt this discrepancy before. (too many feelings at work, right?) Maybe I'm totally wrong, please correct me if I am.

I'm basing this feeling on an experience I had. I'm a Psychology student and in the past I had these classes... sort of like philosophy but a very unorthodox approach. Basically I was given a bunch of abstract, vague pieces of information and at the end of the semester I was supposed to have it all organized as a flow chart. (Now, I'm not sure of what my type is but likely Ti/Ne. (Or Fi/Ne.))

Christ.

I loved that subject because of how open it seemed to be at first. But at the end of the course the feeling I had was that it wasn't open at all. It was like - I can see a lot of possibilities, but ultimately there is a right one and that is the one I have to put on the flow chart to get a good grade, and I can't see what it is. Gee.
Damn if I didn't have the hardest time with it. Trying to follow the class would drain me to such an extent that by the end of the period I felt literally dizzy. They also talked a lot about... seeing those mystical lights or anything. (Clearly I didn't get it well.) Foreseeing was a big theme.So there were those students who 'got' it and loved it; Others simply didn't 'get' it and hated it out of frustration; And there was me, one of the few who didn't really 'get' it, according to those who did, but enjoyed it.

Now, in that sense I'm guessing I come from a Ti+Ne point of view. Again - *I may be totally wrong on everything here*. (Please correct me if what I'm talking is actually related to, say, Te/Ti. Which is possible.) But let's suppose I'm not and follow this logic.
My sympathy for Ni would stem from the fact that... it's a smart function, and yes, Ti+Ne might reach the same conclusion. But the path we walk is completely different. It's like there's this circular path with a ladder... (My mental image here is Pokemon, Dragonspiral Tower. Don't ask.) Just after the ladder, there is a door you're supposed to reach. The Ti+Ne would have to walk all the way around the circle - that is, look at all the possibilities, possibly go into another door on the way and get sidetracked, whatever - before reaching that one door. The Ni simply jumps the ladder. They will reach the same door. But the Ti+Ne will take longer, and the Ni won't know the path. 
So yeah, Ni users might think that Ti+Ne is slow in comparision. And possibly dumb. Sometimes in class I'd make casual remarks - say, "oh, this reminds me of that, they are related!" - only to realize how pointless they were later. Not because it was simply a stupid remark, but it was like I was saying "beware, there's a pit on route 3" and they'd be like "...so? There were no pits in my portal."

...I wonder if all of this makes any sense. I swear I'm not simply bullshitting.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> Oh, that part, ok. I have a feeling my sky analogy was not the most amazing thing ever.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, Ni can draw a conclusion from something. That doesn't mean it's what you'd call "judging" though - I mean, if you put your hand on something and you instinctively think "warm," is that "judging"? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about and why I classify it as Ni.
> 
> The sky analogy and the hand analogy are attempts to explain in terms of how Se works. Se heavily uses the five senses and Ni can feel like a sixth sense at times. In the example you reference, I'm talking about observation but it's not necessarily an observation that the observer is aware of - the observer can get the insight without looking at what brought him to the insight.


Since you are using terms like Ni=conclusions then we should go ahead and say that certain functions are arrogant or any other typical human trait. 

Kinda odd here you are saying that Ni is like a sixth sense but you also believe that Ni is absolutely not mystical.

In your example that I referenced as I mentioned previously, the observation and conclusion can be very much coming from and F or T perspective. A mathematician wouldn't have to go over all , especially simple for him/her, logical written down formula for a math question or equation. They are skilled enough to come to the answer as if they didn't even have to think about it. Just like me or you seeing 2+2=, would we have to stop and think and go oh 1+1=2 etc. (of course would probably turn into some idea about 2+2 does not always =4). This does not mean that anyone who can come up with 4 right away w/o having to stop and think about it is an Intuition (Ni)....instead how did one do so
As my example before mentioned that T and F can and does also come to the conclusion about "T type" w/o having to go through the motions. We can't really just jump to the conclusion that Ni is the only possible answer. More than likely it is not the answer, especially if it stops there just at "T". Like I said though I was in no way saying that it is "this" or "that" function just simply that it does not mean that it is automatically Ni. 
Since @Silveresque apparently already is uncertain of the defining factor of functions. I am only trying to help brush away those uncertainties, not trying to argue or put you down in any way.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

myjazz said:


> Since you are using terms like Ni=conclusions then we should go ahead and say that certain functions are arrogant or any other typical human trait.
> 
> Kinda odd here you are saying that Ni is like a sixth sense but you also believe that Ni is absolutely not mystical.
> 
> ...


1) Fair enough, but you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that Ni is the only possible answer, nor did I imply it. I gave an example of how Ni can manifest itself and I've already explained extensively what I meant. I said in my first post in this thread that I wasn't covering everything.

2) I said Ni can draw a conclusion from something. That doesn't mean nothing else can. I even made a point of describing what I mean by drawing a conclusion.

3) Sixth sense meaning an expansion of the five senses - something that appears like a sense to others and can appear like a sense to the user. You're reading too much into this.

4) What do you mean by "T and F can and does also come to the conclusion about 'T type' w/o having to go through the motions"? I'm not talking about people who are so good at something that they don't need to reflect at all - that has absolutely nothing to do with cognitive functions. My example could just as easily have been looking at someone and thinking "russian," when there is no tag on the person that is screaming russian and I have no experience in determining who is and is not russian.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> For example, if I look at a stranger and think "they are a T." That is Ni at work. I don't know that they are a T and my reasons for thinking it may be based in an accurate observation or complete nonsense, but I never stopped and thought, "Hmm, I wonder if they are a T. Let me examine whether they fit the model of being a T." The thought just appeared in my head, not as an idea but as an observation. As though type is the color of the sky and I'm observing it with my eyes.


This is what I have been replying to, and yet again. By your example and your words That is Ni at work, where I added that this is not at all only Ni at work quit the contrary actually. In my scenarios just as yours with the sky I gave an another logical comparison to that may not be Ni at work. 
Once again I simply pointed out that the scenario you gave is not so much of an Intuition one as the way was presented.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> 1) Fair enough, but you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that Ni is the only possible answer, nor did I imply it. I gave an example of how Ni can manifest itself and I've already explained extensively what I meant. I said in my first post in this thread that I wasn't covering everything.
> 
> 2) I said Ni can draw a conclusion from something. That doesn't mean nothing else can. I even made a point of describing what I mean by drawing a conclusion.
> 
> ...


I replied to #1 in a different post so onto the others,

I agree Ni can draw conclusions, I was just adding for clarity reasons that Ni is not about conclusions nor any function so they the OP'r wouldn't link Ni with conclusions. Kinda like how the link about rabbit hole did because someone who wasn't an Ni user say Ni as always drawing conclusions or something.

The sixth sense part was about your word in which I wasn't against it ,more so confused how you can call Ni that will saying mystical is beyond any comparison?

I mean that T and F can do the exact same thing as your example, I added not going through the motions as a way to define the step by step process idea your imposed before. Such as Fe does not need nor does Fi have to have drawn out reason for the conclusion, but since you also added you "think" which also implies either a different function or an undifferentiated one. Ni is basically a process of imagery perception to take it any further than that requires another function. What I am also saying as I mention before as I am not saying either or function is that there is not enough of meat in the example to say "this" or "that" so far as is to me is related more to an Feeling function personally. Even your Russian example is also borderline what function.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> 2) I said Ni can draw a conclusion from something. That doesn't mean nothing else can. I even made a point of describing what I mean by drawing a conclusion.


This was most of my original point to point that out, just as in the thread title and why a lot of people are like oh I do that or I see that in me. Like I said I wasn't trying to argue with you or disagree, I may not have been very clear as to what I was saying though. For a lot of non Ni users would more than likely say or believe that Ni is and only conclusions and assumptions while not realizing that all functions (humans) do so. @LXPilot had a picture diagram I thought was kinda good on how imagery is linked by and for perception.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

dulcinea said:


> If it helps, I can add to this menagerie of Ni musings, some of the thoughts I had as a kid, and made good use of only Ni, before I discovered my other functions.
> 
> I remember, being in the single digit age, thinking about my existence, and subjectiveness. I used to often think, "I am me... but everyone is me, when you really think of it, and everyone can be 'you', and no matter where I go, I'm always 'here' and someone else is always 'there' so, really I can never be 'there' because as soon as I reach 'there', 'there' becomes 'here', and if my parents never got together, would I have been assigned a different life, or would I not exist?... and why does the sky have to be on the top and the street on the bottom? Why can't it be the other way around? and why is it that the amount of numbers never ends, but the amount of letters of the alphabet does? Can there possibly be as many letters as there are numbers if people kept making them up? I wonder what it would be like to not know English as thus, not know what, say, the word 'orange' means." That's all I can think of for now. I didn't really have a lot of friends as a kid. Gee I wonder why.


Whoa, I definitely think like that, though. Meaning of words was something I loved toying with and still do. Concepts, like "up" and "down" and "time" and why we call things the way we do. Challenging those things. I don't know if that's Ni or just plain old Intuition. I remember writing a story about The Land of Nonsense, where I toyed with the concept of "nothing". I've always loved things like that. I pretty much thought it exactly as you wrote it. Although I have always related to dominant Ne.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

@Julia Bell

You're Ne dom. It seems a good chunk of N doms will develop their other direction over time. I'm old enough to realize that both are developed to such an extent in myself, that it's difficult at times to remember which one I actually lead with.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I doubt most people here (sans @_Julia Bell_, lol) would be able to recognize Ni, let alone, dominant Ni, if it actually even did manifest - I seriously have had trouble recognizing it in other people I know, and I AM an Ni dom! A lot of the time, you have to start with sensation in these types first in order to work your way to their intuition - unless you get to hear them come up with original points, it's unlikely you'll notice it, let alone, really be able to nail it's qualities down (a lot of the time, these people sound like they're simply making points of a highly opinionated nature - why it might seem "opinionated" will come from the fact that it's eyeing some kind of "potential," like intuition is known to do, and it's so far removed from the ordinary, that the person might sound a little full-of-themselves, like they're just trying to assert their individuality all the time, when in fact, that's not the reason their reasoning is the way it is, whether or not this is an actual ego goal of theirs). This is kind of how they try to avoid "superficial judgements," which is kind of their rough/negative point (inferior sensation) - for example, these people tend to be annoyed at anything that has too much "reality value" like appealing to common sentiments and whatnot.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@Cosmicsense
Welcome back


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Julia Bell said:


> Whoa, I definitely think like that, though. Meaning of words was something I loved toying with and still do. Concepts, like "up" and "down" and "time" and why we call things the way we do. Challenging those things. I don't know if that's Ni or just plain old Intuition. I remember writing a story about The Land of Nonsense, where I toyed with the concept of "nothing". I've always loved things like that. I pretty much thought it exactly as you wrote it. Although I have always related to dominant Ne.


Very interesting. Did you feel the need to talk about these musings or did you keep a lot to myself. I think, for me, a lot of my childhood deep thoughts, I kept to myself. I, literally, didn't know how to express my ideas out loud. It's weird.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

dulcinea said:


> Very interesting. Did you feel the need to talk about these musings or did you keep a lot to myself. I think, for me, a lot of my childhood deep thoughts, I kept to myself. I, literally, didn't know how to express my ideas out loud. It's weird.


Well, I kept some of it to myself. But I did share some of the little stories I'd written playing with some of the concepts to my family members. My mom appreciated that sort of thing. What happens with my ideas is that while I really love sharing them just as they come, I don't often get a chance. So they build and build until finally what I've got is this large essay of random thoughts that are barely connected. Sometimes I'll get into conversation with a person willing to actually talk to me regarding one of these things and the bunch of ideas will begin to tumble out. As I talk, the ideas tend to get more organized. Go figure.  

People have either told me they can't really understand what I'm saying, or how insightful that all was and it was the clearest reasoning they'd heard in a while. Haha. XD 

But that's what's risky about just going right out and saying it. You could get a variety of different reactions. @[email protected]


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Silveresque 

*INTROVERTED INTUITING (Ni) 63-72*

*Dominant for INTJ and INFJ, Auxiliary for ENTJ and ENFJ*

In this chapter, we seek to present a picture of the "pure" Introverted Intuiting that we would see if we could carefully remove it from its natural state where it is influenced and colored by all the other elements of personality. Though no process actually exists separated from the rest of the personality, the portrait that follows reflects core characteristics that are in play whenever Introverted Intuiting is engaged at a conscious level. Introverted Intuiting most clearly resembles the descriptions in the following pages when it is in the dominant (first) position. In fact, these descriptions are based on input from people for whom the process is dominant (INTJ and INFJ). But even with Introverted Intuiting in the first position, what you observe will vary noticeably depending on other factors--particularly whether it is paired up with Extraverted Thinking or Extraverted Feeling in the auxiliary (second) position. In order to draw a complete picture of the "essence" of Introverted Intuiting, one must use bits and pieces that cannot individually demonstrate "pure" Ni. Like the splashes of color in an impressionist painting, however, the bullets in this chapter, when taken all together, reveal a vivid portrait that will enable you to recognize Introverted Intuiting when you see it. Knowing what the process would look like if it could be separated from other influences is the foundation of process watching, the practice that will quickly take you as far as you want to go in understanding personality. Introverted Intuiting is an information-gathering process. It focuses on the subjective, internal world of the unconscious to find intangible connections and abstract relationships between the contents of the unconscious and/or the environment. Ni wants to discover underlying significance, systems, and meaning.

*KEY FEATURES*
*Introverted Intuiting*

Focuses on the contents of the unconscious.
Involves a psychic awareness of the intangible .
Searches for grand patterns, themes, and systems in order to understand the meaning and significance of everything.
Operates unpredictably, often through flashes of insight.
Seeks to understand through an abstract sense of the essential nature of all'things and their complex interrelationships.
Attaches meaning and symbolism to the concrete world of the senses.
Seeks to understand the entire "dance of the universe."

*WHAT'S GOING ON?*
*Introverted Intuiting*

Is the only perception process that is independent of the conscious mind.
Is the only process that does not need any external stimulus.
Can be triggered either internally or externally or have no identifiable trigger at all.
Works in mysterious ways and on its own timetable.
Views everything on the broadest, most complex level possible.
Has an abstract, futuristic approach to information.
Asks, "What else is going on here?"
Quickly grasps the meaning behind words. Its focus is on reading between the lines.
Is the keeper of the so-called sixth sense. Unexplainable information can take the form of hunches, clairvoyance, abstract intuition, and messages from the unconscious.
Is really ultimately about trying to understand life itself.

When people are using their preferred introverted Intuiting
Unconscious images are as real to them as anything tangible. 
An external object is important primarily for what it may release within them.
They can intentionally access the process only by creating certain conditions and letting it happen.
That which can be perceived by the five senses is important mainly as a source of clues to aid in the pursuit of an inner understanding of the universal truths that the tangible objects represent.
They look for associations and connections to identify patterns and systems in order to see and understand everything at once as an interconnected whole.
The focus is on indistinct, broad-stroke futures, with seemingly little regard for apparent factual inconsistencies.
Details are not viewed as being very interesting or important.
Gathering concrete information is a challenge. They tend to move quickly, sometimes prematurely, into internal abstractions.
An understanding of what is beneath the surface comes easily.
The connections that they perceive are often not demonstrable. Often these connections appear to others to be leaps or gaps but are actually links of abstract knowing, possibly through pattern recognition.
Life is about inner images: abstractions and visions of how things are and how they could be.
They view everything in the tangible world as a reflection of the much more complex and interesting world "behind the curtain."
They seek to understand complexity through its simple underlying essence.
Visions and intuitive insights are trusted and valued. They "just know" with a confidence and certainty that often cannot be justified or explained to others.
They view abstract relationships as real and vague future scenarios as actual alternate futures. People who dispute their predictions simply lack the vision to be able to see what is coming.
Inspiration is the driver, the energizer, and the goal.
They are carrying on a search for meaning: a search for the cosmic significance and for the underlying commonalities of all that we see.

*FROM THE OUTSIDE, LOOKING IN*
When we experience people who are engaging their preferred Introverted Intuiting, they
Can be difficult to relate to or understand. The unconscious nature of their process is very different from the other three approaches to Perceiving. Not only are their perceptions unique to the individual, but they are nearly impossible to explain or describe in words.
May experience insights that are not connected to the tangible world in any way that makes sense to anyone else.
Tend to search for a better solution, even if the current one works just fine. They are always looking for something new and unlike anything else. They do not want to hear "if it ain 't broke, don't fix it" because they believe that everything can be reinvented and improved.
May be seen as "way out there." In the most dramatic cases they may be called shamans, prophets, or visionaries if other people's reactions are positive. Negative responses can get them labeled as crackpots, radicals, or witches. The difference depends not so much upon the contents of their visions as on how those visions are expressed and whether or not others are receptive to their messages.
Usually have little concern about the usefulness of their insights.
Sometimes are seen as inconsistent or even disloyal. Their internal integrity is complex and private and may not be apparent to others.
Often communicate through abstractions, metaphors, images, and symbols.
Can sound halting, rambling, or awkward as they search for words that convey their abstract thoughts.
Must create brand-new imagery and language every time they attempt to explain anything since they are trying to express some thing that comes from a place where perception is outside the bounds of language.
May fall into ever-more vague and theoretical language as they try to explain something, prove some thing, or convince you.
Often communicate very little specific concrete data and sometimes none at all. The outer world of tangible facts may have little to do with the validity of the message they are trying to convey.
May use abstract or symbolic art as a way of communicating.
Have no limits on the scope of their perception except for the challanges of describing it to others.
Have a hard time listening carefully for long. They are too preoccupied with searching for the meaning and patterns behind the words.
Have a very future-oriented focus on what may come to pass.
Seem to make everything more complex. To them, when you look beneath the surface, all things are interconnected and are, indeed, incredibly complex.
Are sometimes slow to reply. They are not usually seen as being quick on their feet. Before responding, they usually need time to access internal information and consider how it fits in with the rest of the universe.
At other times they may be too quick to reply because the information they present with such conviction is so far removed from the immediate subject being discussed that it sounds like an off-the-wall comment.
May seem to change their focus in a split second from talking about bits of information to making a dramatically broad general statement about what is really going on.
May tune out conversations that do not have meaning or depth for them.
Often ask questions that are very penetrating and may be uncomfortable for others.
Like to ask why. If asked and answered enough times, the question brings them to the depth of understanding that is of interest to them.
Want to know what is really going on behind the facade.
Are extremely independent and take pride in that.
Have little regard for authority. They decide for themselves whether or not rules and regulations make sense and should be followed.
Tend to be exceptionally stubborn.
Have difficulty accepting limitations and constraints. They really believe that the impossible usually just takes a little longer. If you want to see them take action, tell them they cannot do some thing.
Are easily bored by repetitious tasks unless a task requires so little attention that it allows them to focus on their internal world.
Are hard to fully challenge.
May appear arrogant.
Are often quiet in their demeanor. They may even be awkward and shy.
Can become very vocal, passionate, animated, and obstinate when they are convinced that they understand something that others need to know.
Can appear moody or preoccupied. They are often "off somewhere" internally. Their outward demeanor usually reflects what is going on inside, which may be out of sync with what is happening around them.
May have difficulty sharing their creativity with others.
Are often seen as daydreamers.
Often excel at higher, more theoretical and abstract levels of education.

*CONTRIBUTIONS*
Special perspectives and approaches of Introverted Intuiting
A fine-tuned awareness of people's authenticity level and of how safe it is to be open, honest, and vulnerable with them.
An understanding that all things are interrelated in ways that are often intangible and perhaps even unknowable
Insight into what is going on beneath the surface through a sense of the meaning of what can be seen
A talent for operating outside the box
Applying metaphors and symbols
Advancing scientific theory beyond the bounds of conventional wisdom
A capacity to promote understanding by teaching the whys and wherefores
The vision that guides strategic planning

*FROM THE INSIDE*
Paraphrased descriptions of what it is like to gather information through one's preferred Introverted Intuiting
Sometimes I just know something. Even though I don't always understand how I know it, I'm certain that I'm right.
I always wonder, What does this really mean?
I will always accept input for consideration, but I can't be coerced.
I want to understand how complex processes and mechanisms work. I love theory and abstract concepts. The more theoretical and abstract a conversation or line of thought is, the more exciting it is.
I'm always being told to get my head ou t of the clouds and come down to earth.
I am happy when I begin to understand what is going on, to see what will happen.
I'm gratified when I see things happening as I said they would.
I am more interested in pioneering a new road than exploring anything along the beaten path.
I am deeply discontented with routine work that doesn't allow for inspiration or creativity.
I get very frustrated and impatient when others cannot see what I see and will not listen to me. It seems that invariably, a while later someone else will say the same thing and then people will listen and think it is a great idea.
In a "type-alike" group exercise focusing on an object, everyone in our group was disappointed that it wasn't something more complex or meaningful.
The flash of inspiration comes when it wants to come. I can't consciously summon it.
I get a sense of who people are very quickly. I have to remind myself that they probably don 't know me as well as I know them.
You have to search for the meaning in something. You sense the path, but you have to feel your way along it. It's mostly hazy, with a flash of clarity here and there. You think maybe you see something in the distance, but it is never clear. You move through the haze with the certainty that there is something out there to strive to reach. Exactly what that something is, you may never know.
My best ideas come to me during my morning shower. I think I do my best thinking in the morning because I've had a chance to sleep on an idea.
I always know about people.
Sometimes it is hard to start a task. I need to wait for an understanding of the implications, nuances, and broad scope of it because only then will I know what I need to do and how to do it. People often tell me that I procrastinate.
I usually don't remember people's names or factual information about them very well.
I have lived in the same city most of my life. I don't think anyone is better at knowing the best route from one point to another in any given weather or traffic. On the other hand, I couldn't tell you the names of most of the streets.
I was having dinner with a friend. Suddenly I had a clear picture in my mind of what would happen to her on her vacation. Sometimes I get flashes with a lot of information, and other times I have to reflect to figure out what a vision meant.
I often feel like the child in the story "The Emperor's New Clothes." I am the only one who says what is really going on. I have learned that sometimes I need to hold myself back and not say it out loud.
I am sometimes able to have a sense of what the future holds without anything in the external world appearing to support the prediction.
I can sometimes feel people's pain when I look at or touch them.
In finding a career, I know what I do not like, but it is hard to put together a clear vision of what I would like to do. What I do know is pretty vague, as in “I'd like to work with people, to work with my hands or work with animals, or to do work that has meaning."
It's really frustrating when I know how something can be done more effectively and see people clinging to the old way.
I do not let details and facts get in the way of solutions.
I tend to get lost when navigating through the physical world. I guess I'm the classic absent-minded professor.
I have a strong sense about danger. On several occasions I have ducked out of harm's way in the nick of time because I sensed it coming. Usually, though, it just comes through as a reliable sense of which situations to avoid.
I feel as if I have about five hundred social studies in progress in my head at all times. Every behavior I observe gets automatically fed into those studies to continually revise my hypotheses about human nature and interaction.

*VIGNETTES*
Scenes from the world of Introverted Intuiting
When I am looking at a tree, I often don't really see the tree itself. I might be envisioning the forest as it was hundreds of years ago, with Indians living there, or seeing the earth being formed or the forest growing. I could be seeing the tree's environment in the future. I may go off onto an environmental tangent, pondering trees' contributions to the ecosystem or the future of the planet. I may explore a symbolic tangent: the tree as a symbol of life force or as a safe haven for animals.
In a restaurant, I'll probably be very aware of the atmosphere. I may not even pay much attention to the food but will usually tune in to the social dynamics between the people at the table. I'll ponder all sorts of questions: What is the occasion? Should we find a quiet corner where we can talk? What does it mean that we are gathered here together? Is there a special occasion to celebrate?
In a boat with friends, I'll be wondering: What is this trip really all about? Is everyone really saying what they mean? How does this all play out in the greater scheme? What impact will this boat ride have on our future relationships? I may not even notice the weather.
In a "type-alike" group exercise involving instructions to talk about a certain object, our group gravitates immediately to expansive images and themes. For example, one time the object was a simple paper bag. We had very little discussion. One man said, "Everything in the universe can fit into this bag." This statement was written on a piece of paper and placed in the bag. That was all that needed to be said. Everyone in the group then went off on their own internal journey in search of meaning.

*GIFTS*
Unique strengths of Introverted Intuiting
A capacity forseeing the shape of possible futures, unrestricted by time, place, concrete data, or events
Grasping the whole context in a flash of insight
A tendency to fill the roles of prophets and visionary leaders to inspire cultural change toward new models of what can be
A talent for teaching a deeper level of understanding
Connecting society to the intangible, metaphysical world (shamans)
A knack for putting things in a bigger context: a universal context of meaning
Connecting to the collective unconscious


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

@Rim, that's a fairly interesting description of Ni but a lot of it also isn't Ni-specific, ie, some of it applies more to INFJ and some applies to INTJ. In some of the bullets, they describe what happens when functions interact, not the pure function.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Ellis Bell said:


> @Rim, that's a fairly interesting description of Ni but a lot of it also isn't Ni-specific, ie, some of it applies more to INFJ and some applies to INTJ. In some of the bullets, they describe what happens when functions interact, not the pure function.


The system imo works only through interdependence. There is no such thing as pure Ni manifesting. So yeah. It specifically requires Se for example to ballance it. Ni will manifest in different ways depending on type. Primary, tertiary, secondary etc precicely because it depends on the other functions.

o.o at least it makes sense to me lke that. I hear Ni dominants live in their heads and are rather inactive, the opposite of Se doms.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

The Lenore Thompson stuff is decent - it's not something I would really encourage though as anything containing more than general truths or even half-truths though (I mean, to really organically capture the functions as pure w/out reference to perhaps a person's ideas they were raised on, stereotypes, etc. is difficult if you're trying to summarize them). I tend to get annoyed when Ni gets associated with "spirituality" - I mean maybe, but frankly, in a dominant Ni type, I'm not sure this function would necessarily fit any kinds of spiritual connotations in a stereotypically mystical sense - I think that misses the rational significance of the function (after all, Jung seemed to associate spirituality with feeling as well). I can see inferior N types maybe associating intuition with the surreal and spiritual (often in a sort of negative/creepy way), but for someone who uses it as a dominant, I almost doubt these people would view their intuition as "spiritual" at all - to them, it IS realistic - it probably feels like nothing (and a lot of the examples Lenore gives might apply to a tertiary Ni type as well - I'm not convinced those examples are really always the ultimate representations of dominant Ni - in fact, if these types are supposed to "repress" sensation, then I doubt their intuitions are really going to show any clear relevance to tangible objects - if it were really dominant (sort of depends on the individual), it will probably often look really hard to trace back to clearly tangible sources, since the sensation of these types is often very concrete and arbitrary (as it gets used toward intuition - it will often consist of personal observations and sense impressions that are probably a bit out of the ordinary - that's precisely why these types need intuition to begin with - to more-or-less bring purpose to sensation). I tend to be suspicious that a lot of the internet depictions of intuition are often referencing other functions, let alone, the unconscious mind in general (I mean, intuition is associated with the unconscious mind, but after all, it was Jung who seemed to note that most people in general spend more time functioning from the unconscious). I"m not convinced any general statement that sounds symbolic is always a reflection of intuition (dominant) either - all Jung said was that mature INTUITION is a symbolic kind - not that all intuition is symbolic in appearance - that would be a logical fallacy of reasoning - I mean, you can't really be sure that the person talking about the universe fitting in a paper bag was making an intuitive conclusion, let alone, reflective of dominant intuition - there's a good chance it was, but I'm not sure really that dominant intuitives would expend their intuition on cliches that often, normally - who knows, but I can see where there can be thinking behind something like this, or maybe even feeling reasoning to an extent - could be some sensation influence as well. A lot of what good intuition would recognize would be factors relevant to issues of importance in a situation and intellectually - it's hard to know from examples like that that that's in any way, the epitome of an intuitive conclusion. I'm not cutting on Lenore, I think she gets the points across fine, albeit, due to her explaining MBTI rather than Jung, a bit superficially (MBTI is pretty much condemned to superficiality based on it's underlying assumptions, honestly). To really know if that was dominant N, I think you would have to ask that guy WHY he thought that was a reasonable thing to say to begin with to see how reasonable and well he can actually rationalize Ni - see what possibilities are actually behind his statement - I mean, in all honesty, it might be inferior Ni if he can't really give much of an abstract explanation for saying what he did.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

:/ well imo Ni just connects stuff togetehr starting from the past into the present and going into the future in order to spot the pattern, to understnad the dynamic and evolving system driven by cause and effect. For example imagining a future society involves a lot of Ni, tracing patterns from the dawn of human civilization to the present and making a prediction into the future.

All roads lead to Rome and very much so all options are narrowed down futher and further to find the pattern, to see the hidden strings moving the events, people, systems etc. This involves a lot of pondering even when not actively thinking, like a paralel process in the back of your mind constantly running. Its no wonder Ni doms have "AHA!" moments, they think subconciously or something like that. A Ni dom can take a bath and have an idea to a previously pondered problem while scrubbing his ass singing in the bathub, its similar to "sleep on it". The truth is that he WAS thinking about the problem, fully aware of it or not.

I don't see anything magical about this thou...assuming what I said is correct (I have my doubts,  always).

Imo a good example for Ni preference would be a questioning and skeptical mind which is so out of a default need to understand the cause and effect behind specific occurences or because of some other reason. You might not even be actively thinking about it but if you become aware of this you'll pick up on the momnet you suddenly start thinking about such things. A sort of catching yourself in the act XD of thinking, pondering, questoning and trying to spot cause and effect, the "I wonder why..." and then you drift off from one thought "a" leads to "b" leads to "c" lads to "z" etc.

A Ni users mind "wanders"....almost constantly imo.

*Imo Ni doms live in their heads and they require freinds or a partner who can drag them out into Se territory. People only grow if they are challanged. ESTPs and ESFPs will challange Ni doms to move out of their confort zones and they dreadfully require to move out of their heads, out of their rooms, into the world from time to time. The cool part of this is that its mutual .
*


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Rim said:


> :/ well imo Ni just connects stuff togetehr starting from the past into the present and going into the future in order to spot the pattern, to understnad the dynamic and evolving system driven by cause and effect. For example imagining a future society involves a lot of Ni, tracing patterns from the dawn of human civilization to the present and making a prediction into the future.
> 
> All roads lead to Rome and very much so all options are narrowed down futher and further to find the pattern, to see the hidden strings moving the events, people, systems etc. This involves a lot of pondering even when not actively thinking, like a paralel process in the back of your mind constantly running. Its no wonder Ni doms have "AHA!" moments, they think subconciously or something like that. A Ni dom can take a bath and have an idea to a previously pondered problem while scrubbing his ass singing in the bathub, its similar to "sleep on it". The truth is that he WAS thinking about the problem, fully aware of it or not.
> 
> ...


Actually, the way you put it is less controversial, I think, than Lenore Thompson - I sort of prefer it to some of the Lenore stuff - I think what you're saying captures the thought processes better (of Ni) without making overly broad assumptions (that's an issue with MBTI stuff that tends to bug me, hence the username of mine!). As an Ni dom, I kind of reduce my understanding of intuition down to the following - with introverted intuition, it's pretty much like I see possibilities, but weed them out to more subjective ones (ones that relate to what concerns indvidual understanding and issues, in other words) - it's a very quick process (not even kidding, lol), because I'm naturally oriented to intuition, I would think, so for me, there's this acceptance of the objective ones, I think, but in the end, I reduce them down to subjectively oriented conclusions (consciously anyhow, probably with enough influence from the objective ones as well) - they would be the kind of intuitions that largely do not have their direct origins in outer observation, but instead, from subjective foundations of understanding (that relate more to ego defense (subjective) than to how the person adapts to and manages what already exists, either concretely or just as abstract expectations (so, is objective) outside of the self (extraverted functions). The big difference between Ne and Ni, I think, is that with Ne, you almost always can see (almost directly) where the person is coming from with their kind of intuitive connections, while with Ni, it's largely a matter of whether or not you can kind of put yourself in the other person's shoes and come up with an explanation for why their intuition is reasonable or not (more of an underlying explanation for the foundations of their intuitive assumptions that doesn't have any direct linear connection to what they said - sort of finding the trend in reality that set off their intuition - a lot of the time, this intuition is highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding it in order for it to be recognized at all - it's kind of the intuition that forces you to think about your own experiences to try to relate to it - sort of the "why would that person have said that" intuition that kind of forces you to consider the possibilities). With inferior intuition types, it sometimes amounts to them "twisting reality" in kind of a bad way - perhaps jumping to negative conclusions that are just off and result in the person hyperbolizing or making up stuff that has no evidence (I can guarantee you that everyone here knows these kinds of people or has at one point or another). Sort of like the person who might be a worry-wort and always assume the worst is possible for or behind any outcome and as a result, be something of an unconsciously sinister conspirator working to thwart the next (in their eyes, bad) possibility (these people are often those who have issues trying to see the positive in something without concrete proof - even information from their impulsive responses to it). Intuition and Sensation are both functions that deal with the reality of anything, not the doctrine/dogma and mental constructs behind stuff (which would be more of a thinking/feeling focus). Dominant Ns sort of have something else going on with inferior sensation - often, issues and fears about taking anything at face value, which might look like a parody of the issues inferior Ns have, where they can't really trust that anything about a situation is free of unconscious possibility, so they might come to rather silly (often, just really weird sounding) superficial consclusions (conclusions that have their root in the realm of the tangible and reality values) unconsciously and are always kind of trying to unconsciously place themselves above the limitations of conscious expectation - whether or not the negative inferior conclusions work for both types is on these people - very often, they probably will work for them (due to having their dominant to help them out), but when they get too unconscious (rooted in the shadow of the person, in other words), then problems arise, because they end up defending something that's not even related to their ego conscious concerns anymore and might kind of throw the person's sense of their dominant off all-together (depending on how lacking in self awareness the person is to begin with, which is ultimately what this stuff is really all about - not everyone will be unaware of their shadow - some people might kind of live it out more than others - there's no right or wrong answer for this - the only actual moral issue is when people deny their shadow tendencies, then Jung would have spoken of that person being very egotistical and arrogant - probably that kind of person who never tries to see anything any other way but their own).


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Haha. I really do love the objectivity of Ne - it makes everything seem so neverending and really objective, actually (I remember reading somewhere that intuition tends to have the most objective presentation of all of the functions, especially objective intuition of course, which makes me trust the heck out of these types to give an objective, unbiased presentation of say, MBTI, LOL).


Lol! Everything does seem neverending. Something I always like telling myself is how small I am in comparison to the universe. To me, possibilities are just as plenteous as stars in the sky. Haha, I love studying space because it feels limitless. Limitlessness is a concept my mind just loves. 

Hmmm... I guess I can see Intuition being the most objective. Perhaps this doesn't have much to do with it, but in my classes like rhetoric and senior thesis, whenever we have to do a speech and present two sides neutrally, I never seem to have any trouble doing just that.  Maybe because shifting perspectives isn't that difficult to me. 



> I just tend to having trouble keeping up with it (some of these people can have the most unpredictable ways of shooting out possibilities (this drives my Si dom parents crazy about Ne doms) - I guess when intuition is rationalized toward your own ideas first and foremost, it tends to always give me some kind of leverage for what I make of something and my own tendencies in this process, which I tend to keep track of over time to test different possibilities - Ne has this more "fuel for thought" mentality about it that I feel like I have to work off of really quickly before the Ne dom moves on (other Ni doms, I find, that I'm almost literally unconsciously in-synch with their own thinking to the point that I'm actually involuntarily considering what they just said, then I catch myself, almost like out of a trance - it's wild to be amongst people with your dominant as something sufficiently dominant (tert. can be okay as well, really - they're just a little more reserved with it is all and more random with it - funny to think that Jung might've been a tert. Ni type, really).


Haha! My friends do sometimes have a hard time "catching up" to me. I always joke around that I've just got a "tangent brain". Well, I've noticed that anybody that leads with an Introverted function always seems to have "grounded" thoughts. I tend to feel slightly foolish whenever I strike up conversation with them. My ESFJ mother and ESTJ sister do sometimes give me the what-the-heck-just-came-out-of-your-mouth look. Especially when I'm trying to explain my thought process. x_X

I don't know if I get into a "trance" like you do when it comes to conversing with fellow Ne-doms (or auxs). I just get really excited and the more I talk and hear what the other person has to say, the more ideas and possibilities there are, and I notice that both the other person and I will get totally lost in what we are discussing. Oftentimes in conversation I find myself presenting some idea just to see what the other person does with it. It's kind of like I'm saying, "Here's an idea, where do you want to go with it? Take it or leave it. " In that way I suppose Ne does have a "fuel for thought" way of thinking.  



> The Ni abstraction process is definitely weird (let's see what you can do with it after this!)! It tends to happen super fast, where a kind of vision of an archetypal nature is just there - sometimes it's sitting there for a while before I recognize it - my intuitions almost happen with the twitch of a muscle or jerk of the head for a second, it's so funny (wikipedia even talks about intuition potentially being the result of sensory perception trying to balance the intake against what's going on in the mind, so that possibilities end up kind of emerging between both phenomena that, I suppose, kind of tie both together somehow - maybe a way of making "meaning" of arbitrariness? Yea, that right there was an Ni flash ^^ - I can't objectively tell you exactly how I made that connection other than through associating the disorientation of such an event to a concept - why I did it, it's hard for me to know).


That intense. O_O I guess that's the Ni "aha!" moment. For me, my intuitions aren't "there". It's like I see something and it catches my eye (or interest) and it seems like the thing itself is totally brimming with an array of ideas. It's not so much a "grand revealing" (lol, sometimes that's how I think of Ni) as much as I feel like I've found something truly fascinating. Like a treasure hunt sort of feel. 

Interestingly enough (after reading your little "Ni flash", haha), I was just reminded of somebody I know who thinks in a very similar manner. Only I thought that they were an INTP. Perhaps not. It's a way of thinking that is almost familiar but not quite. But very fun to work with. ^_^ 



> Anyhoo, I remember reading about the time thing on some MBTI website - that's a good theory of yours, actually - that kind of fits what Jung gets at about Ne doms almost appearing like sensation types, just because they're connected to the outside world - sort of like they exist real time, but observe the underlying effects of that (that's mighty wild to me as an Ni dom - it sounds like I would have to get drunk to start seeing things that way - maybe I do under stress, I don't know). Yeah, I don't think Ni works on the spot that well in the environment - the possibilities almost have to come to it over a pretty random span (more like, calculation) of time (sort of how I calibrate sensation seems to determine them). Yea, I think objective sensation kind of automatically makes time a whole - it just focuses on the unchanging and changing surface characteristics of everything you're in contact with, either literally or potentially could be, in a given moment. Observing objects in reference to passing time is foreign to me - for me, it's kind of a flat sensation that does that, with intuitive expectations for the next event I will have to contend with.


I'm now highly tempted to create a thread and ask everybody how they experience time. XD That's amazing. I just know I am focused on change and how everything around me changes over time, and I am very aware of where I am within that. Your way of thinking is just so inside-out.  



> I think your last example sounds like Ne. It didn't put me into that Ni "trance" when I read it, lol.


Oh, is it? Cool, then, I suppose. O.O It's almost like my brain has to "cross reference" things constantly. I like that, though, because it just opens up more and more doors and more things to think about.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Actually, the way you put it is less controversial, I think, than Lenore Thompson - I sort of prefer it to some of the Lenore stuff - I think what you're saying captures the thought processes better (of Ni) without making overly broad assumptions (that's an issue with MBTI stuff that tends to bug me, hence the username of mine!).


Thx. It was a highly subjective description (namely how I think), I tried not to give very specific and situational examples, to keep it simple and as basic as possible. 

Its interesting imo, because I'm not a stereotypical "J" (aka Pi - Je), kind of a stereotypical "P"...which has led to many subjective ideas in explaining how the system could work for me, of rethinking it, trying to spot a pattern which works or of rethinking the whole thing from a different perspective. Attempting to connect MBTI and other systems of personality through common patterns etc.

I sometimes refer to this as high speed puzzle assembly as if I were trying to solve a rubik cube, twisting and turning the same idea from as many perspectives as possible to find the patters that work. Sometimes a breakthrough is achieved (aka "AHA!" moment) seeing it in a completely new light...but when I share it, it may be shot down or not understood at all. I wonder sometimes if what I said was wrong or right and did I make such a big intuitive leap leaving a difficult path for others to followm or am I just dumb?

I can explain how I got from A to Z, but while I understand it and it makes sense, it is logical too...others may not, even after I explain. Sometimes I wish for telepathic abilities ^^; so I can impart information without loss of content.


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

Ellis Bell said:


> Doesn't sound abstract at all, but I think with Ni people, they stop and start like that because they want to fully work out an idea before they share it. Of course these kinds of speech patterns are also dependent on the other functions at play, so in the case of a Ti dom, you might have someone less willing to share information readily, but with the INTP because of Ne they might be more open with it.


Yes, that's what I was thinking! The difference would be that Ni users stop and think in the middle of an idea, like they're building the connection to the next idea and Ne users stop and think between ideas, like they're building the whole idea, or something. Which kind of fits the model I tried to explain in... some topic...... about how the difference between Ti-Ne and Ni would lie in how one's 'mental map' looks like _while _they're constructing an idea, since they might ultimately reach the very same conclusion... anyway. But yes, I agree that it's hard to speak of patterns like these... because there are more functions at play, so that would only lead to generalizing. i.e. 'Ne users are more likely to share ideas spontaneously' but you have to take into account whether they are introverts or extroverts, etc etc. ...I wonder if this makes sense. (I frequently develop ideas and afterwards wonder if they make any sense..  I know this guy who does the same to a ridiculous extent... smells like Ne.)


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Chell said:


> Yes, that's what I was thinking! The difference would be that Ni users stop and think in the middle of an idea, like they're building the connection to the next idea and Ne users stop and think between ideas, like they're building the whole idea, or something. Which kind of fits the model I tried to explain in... some topic...... about how the difference between Ti-Ne and Ni would lie in how one's 'mental map' looks like _while _they're constructing an idea, since they might ultimately reach the very same conclusion... anyway. But yes, I agree that it's hard to speak of patterns like these... because there are more functions at play, so that would only lead to generalizing. i.e. 'Ne users are more likely to share ideas spontaneously' but you have to take into account whether they are introverts or extroverts, etc etc. ...I wonder if this makes sense. (I frequently develop ideas and afterwards wonder if they make any sense..  I know this guy who does the same to a ridiculous extent... smells like Ne.)


o.o difference between Ne and Ni would be that Ne generates more and more possibilities and opportunities to follow/jump on or go with, while Ni narrows down and eliminates existing ones to get at the core or essence of a problem (improving the box itself). Ni is good for optimizing an existing idea while Ne is good for using the existing idea as a jump platform from which multiple other ideas can be generated (aka out of the box thinking).

*Visual aide:*

===> Ni <=== vs <=== Ne ===>


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

Rim said:


> o.o difference between Ne and Ni would be that Ne generates more and more possibilities and opportunities to follow/jump on or go with, while Ni narrows down and eliminates existing ones to get at the core or essence of a problem (improving the box itself). Ni is good for optimizing an existing idea while Ne is good for using the existing idea as a jump platform from which multiple other ideas can be generated (aka out of the box thinking).
> 
> *Visual aide:*
> 
> ===> Ni <=== vs <=== Ne ===>


yes, ia!  as I put before, convergent x divergent intuitive processes.


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

Rim said:


> *INTROVERTED INTUITING (Ni) 63-72*
> 
> *Dominant for INTJ and INFJ, Auxiliary for ENTJ and ENFJ*
> 
> ...


Well this is a well written description. I can relate to text in it's entirety so if INTJs van relate to it it's Ni as free from aux influence as I've read. Nice. Thank you for sharing.

On a personal note I'd like to give my two cents on the issue of Ni and it's mystical characteristic or lack of. 
I think Jung obviously refers to a specific phenomena with particular characteristics which he then describes and names iintroverted intuition and after a while we're here discussing this phenomena within the context that is based on his definitions etc. and created context. This definition is relatively kosher in our western materialistic pro- empirical culture. Nice. Interesting to read about and discuss. Great to find there are terms and a context. 
I do however think there are other contexts you can speak of the same phenomena where it would fall in the hocuspocusey category for most people. 
Now for me it does not mean the other contexts are wrong and Jung right because he's given an acceptable scientific explanation. It just means he's done just that, but it's not the first time I have read of "Ni" related things. 
Personally I don't think meaning has been given sufficiently by The psychological interpretation. A psychological meaning yes, but to me there could be other meanings found in other ways of looking at this cluster of phenomena.  some of which involve a mystical/spiritual context.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I don't think Jung actually meant that Ni is really "mystical" in a stereotypical way necessarily at all (Jung never really stereotypes anything - he keeps his wording as loose as possible to describe functions and whatnot). The kind of "mystical" he refers to would be something that might look like a Jesus/prophet statement out of the Bible, for instance, or I dunno, maybe some kind of statement of paradox out of the Twilight Zone/Psychological Novel POVs (think Siddhartha, perhaps). Of course, irl, it might have little to nothing to necessarily be compared to those things at all - these were just what he thought contained some more-or-less clear archetypal representations of this function or aspects of it (often, just statements that are extremely difficult to make compatible with experiential phenomena - the kind of intuition that makes one go "how does he/she know that?" - often, the kind of intuition that is almost inimitable by other people - you can't ever really know for sure how the person arrived at the intuitive results that they did, unless you happen to be influenced by stuff in subjectively similar ways as them).


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I don't think Jung actually meant that Ni is really "mystical" in a stereotypical way necessarily at all (Jung never really stereotypes anything - he keeps his wording as loose as possible to describe functions and whatnot). The kind of "mystical" he refers to would be something that might look like a Jesus/prophet statement out of the Bible, for instance, or I dunno, maybe some kind of statement of paradox out of the Twilight Zone/Psychological Novel POVs (think Siddhartha, perhaps). Of course, irl, it might have little to nothing to necessarily be compared to those things at all - these were just what he thought contained some more-or-less clear archetypal representations of this function or aspects of it (often, just statements that are extremely difficult to make compatible with experiential phenomena - the kind of intuition that makes one go "how does he/she know that?" - often, the kind of intuition that is almost inimitable by other people - you can't ever really know for sure how the person arrived at the intuitive results that they did, unless you happen to be influenced by stuff in subjectively similar ways as them).


I agree with you to an extent, or partly I should say.
To me, the stereotypical part of Mystical is mostly due to External nature of society has put on it, Even the dictionary has been influenced by such. At the same time if we look at Jung an "stereotyping" functions we can take parts of all Function description by Jung and say he was just stereotyping them. Which goes with what you mentioned, not disputing at all here.
As you pointed out Jung was not talking about INTJ's nor INFJ's but instead Ni and Ni influenced Types. When I separate other function usage and influence or Ni alone. I see my self as following Ni instincts, in which is not always an coherent process. I understand that Jung did use wording and people such as Prophets of the Bible, just like he used certain types of people for all his examples of functions...maybe not all but yeah maybe all. People can be delusional and think they are some Prophet or something.
In a way it is like you said above, you can't really know for sure how the person has arrived the Intuitive process and the more the person just trust that process the more guided in that area they will become. 
For instance think back when Ni was or is strongest and you did not try to reason with it or logically conduct it rationally. 
A lot of Ni dom do have a hard time in just trusting in it, people on here even say or has agreed to that in some way or another. 
If you ask me the usage of "mystical" is in the basic sense a mysterious unknown understanding, people who are not Ni dom can have moments of such. Just like a Ti dom influenced person who is always thriving at knowledge in a logical subjective way, so will a Ni dom influenced person will thrive at guided by perceiving reality from an subjective Intuitive way.

So yeah I agree that the stereotypical aspect that is put on mystical is a lot of times overrated but doesn't to me disown mystical entirely.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Jung just used the word "mystical" as a loose adjectival description of the general nature of intuition (since it occurs to people in hazy hunches that eventually unfold into realizations (I know the stereotypes aren't "inaccurate," but the imagery is pretty much superficial - I mean, most people don't have any kind of persona that reflects intuition like this - I think that's just obvious - and no, intuitions and spiritual experiences are not related in principle - an intuition can just involve coming to conclusions from the realm of possibility/underlying trends - nothing particularly spiritual about that) - for dominant N types, this would probably happen very quickly - in fact, it probably hits them in record time most of the time without them really even having to think about it much or review the conditions preceding their intuitions (for them, this would be perfectly rational/reasonable as well) - for other types, this might be a slower process that makes them feel unsure of themselves, especially if intuition is highly repressed, so with inferior intuitives, there's often just a distrust from the outset of their intuitions, because they have a tendency to misdirect them, unless they are negative enough for the person to find them compatible with their sense of confidence around them (that's the case in general with all inferior functions). So, for someone used to having realizations from their own mind, tangible realizations get repressed (sort of like, "stimulations" rather than "hunches"), so you get someone with a bit of a compulsive relationship to the tangible world and tangible experience - someone who, no matter how much they may deny it, does not trust the world at face value - they might fight anything that comes their way - might not be able to trust their snap impressions of a situation (their superficial judgments have a tendency to be quite negative, since they repress senses of familiarity and whatnot toward their *shadow* - *the lesser known aspects of themselves that don't really "know" familiarity*).


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@JungyesMBTIno
That is basically what I said except where you added that the negative aspect to inferior functions, in which is against what Jung considered it as. But I will give some slight regard since you did later conclude the shadow but then again that is not Jung either.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Ni would be abstract intuition...the kind of intuition that asks "But what if that were to be true...What possible notions or ideas would thwart this or bring it closer to actualization?" This kind of intuition generally leaves a dominant out-of-touch with any collective sense of reality values. Sort of "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" style intuition.


----------



## Karma Butterfly (Jul 15, 2013)

Julia Bell said:


> Whoa, I definitely think like that, though. Meaning of words was something I loved toying with and still do. Concepts, like "up" and "down" and "time" and why we call things the way we do. Challenging those things. I don't know if that's Ni or just plain old Intuition. I remember writing a story about The Land of Nonsense, where I toyed with the concept of "nothing". I've always loved things like that. I pretty much thought it exactly as you wrote it. Although I have always related to dominant Ne.


I did think that way as a child too, I remember spending endless hours obsessing over whether would I cease to exist and how could that possibly happen after I died when I was 5. I've always been fascinated with whether "nothing" actually exists since then.

But I still think the same things up to this day, and I've always thought they were due to Ne too.



dulcinea said:


> I believe Ne and Ni have a lot of tendencies that overlap, but that's what I always understood was the big difference. *Ne users do seem to work out their ideas by talking them out, getting them, somehow outside their heads as they come. I find as an Ni-dom, I prefer to work out my ideas in my head before I want to express them. *I believe INFJs collaborate with others via Fe and Se, and I can see how that would be the case with me. I do sense myself asking myself: Will this idea benefit the person I'm talking to? Is this in any way possible to be put into a real world application? Is there any reason why the person I'm talking to will even want to hear this? Is this something that appeals to them personally based on what I know about this person and their interests? If the answer is no to all, then I smile and keep it to myself. Before I knew how to use my extroverted functions, *I just didn't express anything. It's like I was afraid to. I know that might sound odd to a Ne dom, for whom it probably feels more natural to express ideas than not.*


I don't see how it can work like this for every Ne dominant user since the only person I ever tell my ideas and theories to for ages is myself. It can take me years for me to actually share conclusions I came to and I usually hold something back even then. 



Julia Bell said:


> Haha. XD The only way I've ever been able to get an idea of the All Mysterious Ni (because that is what it is to me -- a very backwards, weird sort of Intuition, lol) is to see how it works with Se.
> 
> I used to just say Ni is narrower. I don't think narrower works. It's not that Ni is narrower but that its focus is on something different. I mean, both do focus on possibilities concerning something. What I've noticed is that a person who uses Ni seems to see what is (Se) and then tends to peer behind a curtain of what is going on and see all aspects and meanings and such that surround that -- and then connects those to other things. Other concepts that stretch and touch everything. I mean, in this way it could almost be broad. It sees broad concepts in something narrow that help define reality, or see another way of looking at this one small piece of reality. I don't like to use the word meaning because I connect it to Feeling in my mind. But they don't just do what an Ne-dom does.
> 
> *A Ne-dom might see a person and wonder about them, wonder who they are, what they could be feeling, what could be happening, what sort of person they are truly, what sort of person they could be in the future. Multiple realities, some that totally differ from the next possibility. Random ideas stemming from one object. Ne is just so focused on the potential surrounding that other person. But a Ni-dom might look at a person and think for whatever reason, "I see all of beauty here..." and might begin to connect this concept to other things.* *Ne seems much more random -- an unorganized explosion of tangents that originate from the object, haha. Ni to me looks like a more carefully connected web, touching on undercurrents that lay behind things as opposed to the ideas lying clearly in front of them. *Maybe that's why Ni is sometimes described as being "timeless". Ne is subject to time and change. Ni isn't, really. Because what it focuses on isn't subject to time (from what I understand) and it is not so much focused on movement and change and potential. I suppose that because anything within the external world will be effected by all of those things and depends on those things -- and therefore, Ne is restrained to that as well.


That's interesting, I am definitely focused on digging out the real deal out of interesting people I meet, but I've noticed I don't get interested as often as others Ne users I know.

When I see a person I don't ask myself any questions, I get unasked "diagnosis".

Instead of going "Is that guy a T?" I instantly get "That guy's a T". Then I chagrin myself for jumping to conclusions and if they interest me enough, I may investigate closer. Nine out of ten times my first reading was right and I get angry for wasting my time, though. 



JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think Ni can most simply be said to be *a process label for the act of the mind rationalizing possibility against unconscious expectations* (Ne would be more like how the mind deals with possibility reflecting the influence of the unconscious on perception of the environment and real life occurences).* Ni kind of produces the "previously unimagined" possibilities this way (sort of the kind of intuition that zeros in on what people are trying to avoid seeing as a reality, since that's kind of the point of the unconscious anyway - it's barred from consciousness for this reason)*, and it winds up taking on a metaphysical character that sort of rationalizes possibilities positively toward real world outcome.


That's a good way of describing it. It goes for the unwanted territories quite often.

Anyway I'm really glad I stumbled on this thread, it has the most sane, focused and fruitful Ni discussion I've seen on this forum so far.


----------



## Grad0507 (Dec 12, 2013)

Mayura said:


> That was an amazing description of Ni. Thanks for linking.


Wow! Now I understand what Ni is. I've been in states where it seemed like I was in a dream state while awake. I needed to ground myself so I wasn't so far removed from the world. I'm also really good at poetry. Out of all the letters in INFJ I'm strongest in N (95%). However, my question is, if my Ni is so developed, then why am I bad at telling if someone has bad juju and is trying to just separate me from my money?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ameeker said:


> Wow! Now I understand what Ni is. I've been in states where it seemed like I was in a dream state while awake. I needed to ground myself so I wasn't so far removed from the world. I'm also really good at poetry. Out of all the letters in INFJ I'm strongest in N (95%). However, my question is, if my Ni is so developed, then why am I bad at telling if someone has bad juju and is trying to just separate me from my money?


What does grounding yourself actually mean to you, how do you do it?


----------



## Grad0507 (Dec 12, 2013)

This might sound like a weird answer, but keeping salt by the bed helped.


----------

