# Why are Ti and Ni often confused?



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Why is introverted thinking and introverted intuition often confused? 

I've also noticed that many people who get high Ti scores on Cognitive Functions tests also get high Ni scores. In what ways are they similar?


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

They're confused because people define Ni with Ti processes. People think Ni is about connecting logical premises to form new ideas and systems. Yet, that is what Ti does. 

Basically, Ni is collecting intangible data, reorienting it subjectively, relating it to previously known data, and identifying it. There isn't any connecting the dots or creating new opinions or ideas, which are part of the J functions.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> They're confused because people define Ni with Ti processes. People think Ni is about connecting logical premises to form new ideas and systems. Yet, that is what Ti does.
> 
> Basically, Ni is collecting intangible data, reorienting it subjectively, relating it to previously known data, and identifying it. There isn't any connecting the dots or creating new opinions or ideas, which are part of the J functions.


Ni does connect the dots _subconsciously_.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> They're confused because people define Ni with Ti processes. People think Ni is about connecting logical premises to form new ideas and systems. Yet, that is what Ti does.
> 
> Basically, Ni is collecting intangible data, reorienting it subjectively, relating it to previously known data, and identifying it. There isn't any connecting the dots or creating new opinions or ideas, which are part of the J functions.


Any clever analogies or examples to better explain your second paragraph?


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> Ni does connect the dots _subconsciously_.


Ti connects the dots subconsciously. The P functions do not process data in such a way. Perception is observation, identification, and storage of data.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

TruthDismantled said:


> Any clever analogies or examples to better explain your second paragraph?


If you take technology as an example. Every time a new map app comes out, Ni sees the intangible data (ideas, motives, purpose, etc.,) reorients it subjectively (forms an impression that could be a feeling, image, sense, etc.,) relates it to data they already know (an app with a similar purpose or motive, or even another concept or product) and then identifies the app as something that directs them to a destination with ... differences. 

I don't know if that a good example, but that's about how it goes.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> Ti connects the dots subconsciously. The P functions do not process data in such a way. Perception is observation, identification, and storage of data.


It's surprising that you use the word perception when you're not even using it accurately. The very definition of the word is, in part, about, "A way of understanding or interpreting something." There's no reason to think that a function based on that notion cannot look at multiple things and interpret them together, i.e. connect the dots. 

The main difference between perception and judgment is that judgment insists on conclusions. But conclusions are not required to interpret, nor are they required to connect dots, look at different perspectives, etc.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> It's surprising that you use the word perception when you're not even using it accurately. The very definition of the word is, in part, about, "A way of understanding or interpreting something."


I am using it accurately. It is understanding and interpreting things. Like identifying the meaning of a word in order to use it accurately. It isn't about taking that word and forming an entire logical structure from it, and then connecting it to other words that will prove string theory. You are bringing in the J function into your definitions, and trying to make the P function into a processing function, which it isn't. 



> There's no reason to think that a function based on that notion cannot look at multiple things and interpret them together, i.e. connect the dots.


That process is forming new systems and structures. Exactly the process of Ti. 



> The main difference between perception and judgment is that judgment insists on conclusions. But conclusions are not required to interpret, nor are they required to connect dots, look at different perspectives, etc.


If all the functions do exactly the same thing, then the entire type theory is pointless. If Ni can do what Ti does (except conclusions) then we might as well have Ti and ditch Ni. Maybe Ni is like the appendix of the functions? It was useful in the past, but now has become a T function? That's where this entire idea is headed.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> If you take technology as an example. Every time a new map app comes out, Ni sees the intangible data (ideas, motives, purpose, etc.,) reorients it subjectively (forms an impression that could be a feeling, image, sense, etc.,) relates it to data they already know (an app with a similar purpose or motive, or even another concept or product) and then identifies the app as something that directs them to a destination with ... differences.
> 
> I don't know if that a good example, but that's about how it goes.


If you're correct, that's a nice clear example you gave. Thanks!

When I see concepts like intangible, subjective, archetype it throws me off.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

TruthDismantled said:


> If you're correct, that's a nice clear example you gave. Thanks!
> 
> When I see concepts like intangible, subjective, archetype it throws me off.


I'm glad it made some sense. Using jargon is easy, but understanding it in a personal way is a lot harder, and I like when people use examples as well.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> I am using it accurately. It is understanding and interpreting things. Like identifying the meaning of a word in order to use it accurately. It isn't about taking that word and forming an entire logical structure from it, and then connecting it to other words that will prove string theory. You are bringing in the J function into your definitions, and trying to make the P function into a processing function, which it isn't.
> 
> That process is forming new systems and structures. Exactly the process of Ti.
> 
> If all the functions do exactly the same thing, then the entire type theory is pointless. If Ni can do what Ti does (except conclusions) then we might as well have Ti and ditch Ni. Maybe Ni is like the appendix of the functions? It was useful in the past, but now has become a T function? That's where this entire idea is headed.


Strawman, strawman, and... strawman. How about arguing with what I said, not a bunch of bullshit arguments that you imagined so that you could look like you're right?

I said that perception can connect the dots, interpret things, and look at different perspectives... none of which has anything to do with "forming an entire logical structure," "connecting it to other words to prove string theory," or (the apparent followup of that) "forming new systems and structures."

And nowhere did I say that all of the functions do the same thing. That's one of the most pathetically blatant strawman arguments I've ever seen. I mean, my god, at least the other ones had a bit of subtlety to them.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

[No message]


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

TruthDismantled said:


> Why is introverted thinking and introverted intuition often confused?
> 
> I've also noticed that many people who get high Ti scores on Cognitive Functions tests also get high Ni scores. In what ways are they similar?


 How do you notice they are confused?

I may glaze over technicalities, but for the sake of simplicity I'll put it this way. They both, like all Introverted functions, rely on the 'psychic' ability to _redefine _a definite object they observe. Cognitively they have nothing else in common.

Introversion aims to improve a method of understanding something. Ni looks for a target's consistent pattern via hypotheses. Ti rehashes (build from old to new) a pre-existing system via impersonal formulas. In 1st impressions, both can come off as meticulous in preparing thoughts.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Le9acyMuse said:


> How do you notice they are confused?
> 
> I may glaze over technicalities, but for the sake of simplicity I'll put it this way. They both, like all Introverted functions, rely on the 'psychic' ability to _redefine _a definite object they observe. Cognitively they have nothing else in common.
> 
> Introversion aims to improve a method of understanding something. Ni looks for a target's consistent pattern via hypotheses. Ti rehashes (build from old to new) a pre-existing system via impersonal formulas. In 1st impressions, both can come off as meticulous in preparing thoughts.


Observations of people stating they can't decide which is dominant in their personality

The quarrel over whether Jung was Ti or Ni dominant

The fact that Ti users and Ni users often score highly on both functions

I think it's the outward appearance of Ti - and Ni - doms which often leads to confusion. They are, as you said, meticulous in preparing thoughts, also can have difficulty in expression of ideas and visions derived from the functions. Though the main outward difference will come from either being Je or Pe.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

I think the intuitive functions are about visualizing (?) Subconscious associations in symbols. The logical functions are about creating causal or evidence based links between objects/events


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Ni is perception and Ti is judgement. So, from my understanding it's like this:

Ti = Has an internal framework (or set of ideas) of what 'truth' and 'correctness' are and so, before coming to a conclusion about a perceived piece of data, it has to compare that data to the data already included in the framework. This can take a while if the perceiving function is well developed, as the more data the user perceives, the more it needs to try and find the correct placement for it. I view it as like putting books on shelves based on genre and size - but sometimes the genre isn't clear and so it can take some mulling over and, in the end, it might be too big or small to fit properly on the shelf anyway, so it's disregarded.
Ti dominants are supposedly very stubborn in their younger years because once they've developed their framework (or shelving unit) they only want to put into it what fits and goes into the right place. They don't want to have to dismantle half the shelves to get the space between them just right to fit the new book.

Ni = Views bunches of data with an 'inside eye' (internal and subjective) and scrutinizes them from the angles relevant to the context of the data. It might catch glimpses of a new angle which is irrelevant and it's more likely to push that aside to try and gain a clear view of the connections between the data within the group. The usual comparison is having a box of puzzle pieces and putting them together to form an image which has a new context and meaning from the pieces it was made from.

My descriptions may not work quite right, but it's the best I can do at the moment.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> You said Ni can "look at multiple things and interpret them together, i.e. connect the dots." Connecting dots of multiple concepts or ideas is something called thinking.
> 
> Connecting the dots is not taking in information and understanding that information for what it is. What you are implying is that perception is really just thoughts. In other words, P is taking several pieces of data and forming an idea, opinion, thought, theory, etc. You are taking perception and transforming it into judging.


Actually, according to this dictionary, connecting the dots mean, "To understand the relationship between different ideas or experiences." Again, this does not require a judgment, or "conclusion" - it only requires interpretation, which is part of what perception is. So for example, if I notice that a person walking on the sidewalk is holding an open umbrella and it is raining, I will immediately interpret a relationship between the two things that I have perceived (open umbrella and rain) because I know what rain is and what an umbrella is used for. 

There is no conclusiveness in my observation; I'm not thinking through anything and I'm not computing string theory - I'm simply noting the presence of two specific things that appear to have a relationship in the existing context.



Kathy Kane said:


> You also said that the difference between P and J is that J comes to a conclusion. And my response was appropriate. You can't say the P functions are only slightly different than the J functions, because then they are doing the same jobs, and one set is totally useless.


No, I said the *main* difference, not the only difference.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> Ti connects the dots subconsciously. The P functions do not process data in such a way. Perception is observation, identification, and storage of data.


The view that S and N are just about passive "perception" is one that's occasionally encountered on internet forums but rarely in respectable sources, and it wasn't really Jung's view. Although he characterized the _essence_ of S and N as modes of perception, his descriptions make it clear that he didn't limit them to an _information gathering_ role (or, as you put it, "observation, identification, and storage of data"). On the contrary, he said that Ne, for example, had "its own characteristic morality," and described Ne-doms choosing among various possibilities based purely on their N function — while noting that not bringing either of their judging functions to bear could sometimes lead to bad results. As Jung explained: "Just as sensation, when it is the dominant function, is not a mere reactive process of no further significance for the object, but an activity that seizes and shapes its object, so intuition is not mere perception, or vision, but an active, creative process that puts into the object just as much as it takes out."

As Jung understood things, P-doms make lots of choices and decisions based on their dominant P function. He viewed their dominant P function as what he called the "supreme motivating force" in their lives, not something limited to passive "perception," dependent on one of the rational "judging" functions to actually be turned into any kind of decision or action.

Differentiating "concrete sensation" from "abstract sensation" (the kind associated with S-doms), Jung explained, "Concrete sensation is a reactive phenomenon, while abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always associated with the will, i.e., with a sense of direction. The will that is directed to abstract sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude." Similarly, "Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it responds directly to the given facts; abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, needs a certain element of direction, an act of the will, or an aim."


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

It's because fucking IxTPs think they are INTJs.

Ti is an intricate information network like a spider's web or a forest. Ti information is extremely fine detailed and is like a high resolution image. Ti is like walking in the forest and noticing each different type of tree in the forest.

Ni is like black hole that sucks in information and condenses it down to it's basic essence. Ni is low detailed amd is like low resolution image. In the forest analogy, Ni sees the forest from above and doesn't notice each individual tree but the overalk makeup of the forest.

It's like this picture:










Ti notices and focuses on individual small portraits yet Ni notices and fıcuses on the big portrait.

Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Grehoy said:


> Ti is like walking in the forest and noticing each different type of tree in the forest.


Wait. Aren't INTPs supposed to be the quintessential absent-minded-professor types?

I thought INTPs were the type most likely to walk in the forest, deep in thought, and not even notice they were walking in a forest.


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

reckful said:


> Wait. Aren't INTPs supposed to be the quintessential absent-minded-professor types?
> 
> I thought INTPs were the type most likely to walk in the forest, deep in thought, and not even notice they were walking in a forest.


Becuse they are walking in their mental forest.

Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I have no idea, they aren't really that alike even though the two processes work pretty well together in what they could do to the individual.

You get this individual who tries to explain something that goes on "behind the scenes" without any sort of connection to anything outside of their own prescribed idioms that they may not necessarily care to talk to you about. So you might be talking to someone who uses the different meaning of not only what the content of the language they are talking through, but also what sort of context that they are using it in. Contrast this with Ni-Te in which they will use pre-existing terms and their original meanings to describe their perceptions.

@reckful

I don't think Jung meant that the perception functions are actually capable of judging though...if that is what you are saying. Though I do agree with the fact that their "J-functions" will likely orientate itself towards the dominant perspective consciously.

I also think that there are trends to functions. The best example that I can use is that with the Ne-dominant who uses symbolism that is well-known, and generally uses physical characteristics to attach to other related physical characteristics and somehow make a point through those. Contrast this with Ni in which the symbolism is not related to anything that is well-known or just entirely original to the person. I guess the best example I could give is the association with Swords with the intellect in the tarot is the result of Ni with it's judging functions and the association with Bulls with strength is something that is Ne.


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

Interesting premises.



TruthDismantled said:


> Observations of people stating they can't decide which is dominant in their personality


 Potentially useful indicator. It could be explained as pervasive incompetence. Most people agreeing on one or the other might indicate they use a relatively uniform method for figuring it out. Typing methods are all over the place for most newcomers and many veterans.



> The quarrel over whether Jung was Ti or Ni dominant


 There's potential here, too, but same explanation. Jung is Ni-dominant. Gregory House is Ti-dominant (I know similar debates are ongoing about him, Ni vs Ti, too).



> The fact that Ti users and Ni users often score highly on both functions


 Even though online tests come with risk (1. cognitive functions are immeasurable. 2. tests are often biased by the developer's inaccuracy be there any) those results you mentioned may show the person is IXFJ, ISXP or ENFJ. That's a bit over 1/4 (5/16) of all types and could occur as a perpetual Ti Ni spectrum with them.

If all this isn't the case, then there's something wrong with the test. Only 5 types use both Ti and Ni consciously. The shadow functions afterwards aren't conscious. So, an INTJ won't score high on Ti because it's _actually_ high; it's more likely a mistake.



> I think it's the outward appearance of Ti - and Ni - doms which often leads to confusion. They are, as you said, meticulous in preparing thoughts, also can have difficulty in expression of ideas and visions derived from the functions. Though the main outward difference will come from either being Je or Pe.


 I usually tell the difference between Ni and Ti by determining someone's dominant focus. If neither Ti nor Ni is dominant, I find out through the process of elimination if they're used. Ti has a predetermined standard it wants to reach. Ni does not, thus it IDs patterns and has other functions assign standards later.

Ti is steadier; reworks foundations to its own standards. Ni gets 'distant' to focus on clues.


----------



## Grehoy (May 30, 2014)

Grehoy said:


> It's because fucking IxTPs think they are INTJs.
> 
> Ti is an intricate information network like a spider's web or a forest. Ti information is extremely fine detailed and is like a high resolution image. Ti is like walking in the forest and noticing each different type of tree in the forest.
> 
> ...


When you tell Ti-doms that the collage presents an image of Bush, some of them tell you how one of the small portraits is off color hence that your conclusion cannot be correct. I suscept some of them does that on purpose, to be able to retain their status of high intellect that they take pride in.

they cannot not let go of the consistency on micro scale for macro scale consistency and global picture.

Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Grehoy said:


> It's because fucking IxTPs think they are INTJs.
> 
> Ti is an intricate information network like a spider's web or a forest. Ti information is extremely fine detailed and is like a high resolution image. Ti is like walking in the forest and noticing each different type of tree in the forest.
> 
> ...


Looking at that picture I kind of find myself presupposing that the image is correct, that the outcome of what is visible is exactly what was meant. So I build an interpretation on the basis that it is how it is supposed to be, and work with what I have there. I don't look for what could be improved at all, I assume for some reason that it is a perfect representation of the designers intention and message.

My view is that it depicts how Bush was in a position of leadership over millions of people as president, and in many ways was a representative for the country. Also interesting to note that the average person in this image is many times smaller than Bush. For me it's like putting him on a pedestal as a great hero and speaker for the people.

Now I'm getting more detailed and looking at the finer details, seeing how the designer put the images together. Using black and white printed photos for his hair, mainly white people for the face and black people for his eyes, mouth, and part of the background.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

reckful said:


> The view that S and N are just about passive "perception" is one that's occasionally encountered on internet forums but rarely in respectable sources, and it wasn't really Jung's view. Although he characterized the _essence_ of S and N as modes of perception, his descriptions make it clear that he didn't limit them to an _information gathering_ role (or, as you put it, "observation, identification, and storage of data"). On the contrary, he said that Ne, for example, had "its own characteristic morality," and described Ne-doms choosing among various possibilities based purely on their N function — while noting that not bringing either of their judging functions to bear could sometimes lead to bad results. As Jung explained: "Just as sensation, when it is the dominant function, is not a mere reactive process of no further significance for the object, but an activity that seizes and shapes its object, so intuition is not mere perception, or vision, but an active, creative process that puts into the object just as much as it takes out."
> 
> As Jung understood things, P-doms make lots of choices and decisions based on their dominant P function. He viewed their dominant P function as what he called the "supreme motivating force" in their lives, not something limited to passive "perception," dependent on one of the rational "judging" functions to actually be turned into any kind of decision or action.
> 
> Differentiating "concrete sensation" from "abstract sensation" (the kind associated with S-doms), Jung explained, "Concrete sensation is a reactive phenomenon, while abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always associated with the will, i.e., with a sense of direction. The will that is directed to abstract sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude." Similarly, "Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it responds directly to the given facts; abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, needs a certain element of direction, an act of the will, or an aim."


I find that Jung focused on the P functions and the object. He doesn't take the P functions and the object and confuse them with the J functions and thoughts, ideas, and theories when connecting the object with other objects. The forum descriptions of Ni have gone way past the object and into the systems the object fits into. 

I never said the gathering of information was purely subconscious. There is also a conscious aspect to it. Most people intend to do the things they do, but what they observe isn't always conscious. That doesn't mean that the conscious information gathering is actually judging. They are still separate things. 

I don't see why morality can't be observed, identified, and stored. Morals have an intangible and a tangible aspect that both N and S can observe. That doesn't go against what I said. The judging comes in with the worth, value, and benefits of the morals. 

As for S functions, they do focus on the tangible. Their information gathering can be more hands-on. Again, not going against what I said. 

Jung also said the P functions do not include judging. He even says they don't interpret objects.


----------



## Velocity (Dec 8, 2013)

I have a good INTJ friend and other friends think he is the smarter one of us. And he probably is, specially if you measure IQ with the amount of knowledge a person can have. But fun things is that sometimes he can be completely off, and he wont ever hear how stupid and illogical he sounds... That is one thing we never do as a Ti user, we may be wrong but we wont be illogical. 

So if you know a lots of things but sometimes got the complete backwards of what you think you knowed you probably is a Ni user..
And if you know less about things, but atleast everything you know is processed twice or more in your brain, you probably is a Ti user.

End of story


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> Jung also said the P functions do not include judging. He even says they don't interpret objects.


Jung says S and N don't "interpret" objects? How can you possibly have read the quotes in my previous post and make that assertion?

As previously noted, Jung specifically explained: "Just as sensation, when it is the dominant function, is not a mere reactive process of no further significance for the object, but *an activity that seizes and shapes its object*, so intuition is not mere perception, or vision, but *an active, creative process that puts into the object just as much as it takes out*."

You can quibble all you like about what's a "judgment" and what isn't, but Jung describes Ne-doms (for example) arriving at their own _interpretations_ of where things are going — i.e., demonstrating N's ability to "put into the object just as much as it takes out" — and then ruthlessly chasing after those hot trends without any involvement by either of the "judging" functions. So the fact that those N-based actions may not involve "judgment" in a narrow/technical sense (by Jung's definition) doesn't mean they don't involve _active interpretation_ of the facts, and it doesn't mean they don't involve major _decisions_ by the N-dom and subsequent actions based on those decisions.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> Actually, according to this dictionary, connecting the dots mean, "To understand the relationship between different ideas or experiences." Again, this does not require a judgment, or "conclusion" - it only requires interpretation, which is part of what perception is. So for example, if I notice that a person walking on the sidewalk is holding an open umbrella and it is raining, I will immediately interpret a relationship between the two things that I have perceived (open umbrella and rain) because I know what rain is and what an umbrella is used for.
> 
> There is no conclusiveness in my observation; I'm not thinking through anything and I'm not computing string theory - I'm simply noting the presence of two specific things that appear to have a relationship in the existing context.
> 
> ...


Perception is focused on each object. So Ni would have a subjective impression of the umbrella, another one for rain, a different one of the person, etc. Of course it observes that the rain bounces off the umbrella, but Ni wouldn't have come up with that connection between the two without that observation. 

What you described isn't really connecting the dots, so much as observing something that happened. Connecting the dots would be seeing an umbrella and then seeing rain and understanding that the umbrella is used to keep rain off of you. That is too far for the P functions to go. Now Se doms would take the umbrella and experiment with it and maybe figure it out through observation. But Ni would form an impression from previous observations. If there isn't a previous observation that relates to it, then Ni would need more observations to identify it. At that point seeing the umbrella used in the rain would be useful in identification. Without some reference Ni might never identify it without engaging the J functions, which could connect the dots.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

reckful said:


> Jung says S and N don't "interpret" objects? How can you possibly have read the quotes in my previous post and make that assertion?


Where did I say I got that from what you quoted? Though, I did get it from one of your quotes. It does make me wonder if you are reading what you are quoting. If you read through the spoiler in this post of yours, you will find where I got that comment from: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/263017-feeling-thinking-misnomer.html#post7943321



> As previously noted, Jung specifically explained: "Just as sensation, when it is the dominant function, is not a mere reactive process of no further significance for the object, but *an activity that seizes and shapes its object*, so intuition is not mere perception, or vision, but *an active, creative process that puts into the object just as much as it takes out*."
> 
> You can quibble all you like about what's a "judgment" and what isn't, but Jung describes Ne-doms (for example) arriving at their own _interpretations_ of where things are going — i.e., demonstrating N's ability to "put into the object just as much as it takes out" — and then ruthlessly chasing after those hot trends without any involvement by either of the "judging" functions. So the fact that those N-based actions may not involve "judgment" in a narrow/technical sense (by Jung's definition) doesn't mean they don't involve _active interpretation_ of the facts, and it doesn't mean they don't involve major _decisions_ by the N-dom and subsequent actions based on those decisions.


Ne observing something and expanding it out to other observations isn't connecting dots. It's extraverting their observation. They aren't coming up with new ways to observe something, but what else goes with that observation. For example, the sky is blue, it's vast, it has clouds, the clouds rain, rain hits the ground, the ground is wet, etc. That is extraverting an observation. Everything Ne expands to is related to the original observation. They aren't connecting the dots of the sky and a jet engine, for example. In order to go there the J functions is involved.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> Perception is focused on each object. So Ni would have a subjective impression of the umbrella, another one for rain, a different one of the person, etc. Of course it observes that the rain bounces off the umbrella, but Ni wouldn't have come up with that connection between the two without that observation.
> 
> What you described isn't really connecting the dots, so much as observing something that happened. Connecting the dots would be seeing an umbrella and then seeing rain and understanding that the umbrella is used to keep rain off of you. That is too far for the P functions to go. Now Se doms would take the umbrella and experiment with it and maybe figure it out through observation. But Ni would form an impression from previous observations. If there isn't a previous observation that relates to it, then Ni would need more observations to identify it. At that point seeing the umbrella used in the rain would be useful in identification. Without some reference Ni might never identify it without engaging the J functions, which could connect the dots.


Lol, you aren't even refuting what I said; just ignoring my explanation - complete with a dictionary definition - and saying I'm wrong while throwing in a bunch of pre-assumed conclusions about various functions and how you have interpreted them. I'm done with this.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> Where did I say I got that from what you quoted? Though, I did get it from one of your quotes. It does make me wonder if you are reading what you are quoting. If you read through the spoiler in this post of yours, you will find where I got that comment from: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/263017-feeling-thinking-misnomer.html#post7943321


I didn't say you "got that from what _ quoted." On the contrary, I asked how you could possibly have read what I quoted and then gone on to make that assertion.



Kathy Kane said:



Ne observing something and expanding it out to other observations isn't connecting dots. It's extraverting their observation. They aren't coming up with new ways to observe something, but what else goes with that observation. For example, the sky is blue, it's vast, it has clouds, the clouds rain, rain hits the ground, the ground is wet, etc. That is extraverting an observation. Everything Ne expands to is related to the original observation. *They aren't connecting the dots of the sky and a jet engine, for example. In order to go there the J functions is involved*.

Click to expand...

And here again, your aversion to admitting your mistakes is just causing you to post word salads that are obviously inconsistent with the facts. And yes, I mean "facts." Whether Jung was right or wrong about what he said is a matter of opinion, but what he actually said is (in many cases) a matter of fact. And Jung clearly said that "in order to go there" — i.e., creatively interpret what they observe and then make decisions and take actions based on those interpretations — Ne-doms do not need to make use of either of "the J functions."

When Jung describes N (Ni and Ne both) as "an active, creative process that puts into the object just as much as it takes out," what is it that you think N is "putting into the object" if it doesn't involve any "interpretation" or "connecting the dots"?_


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

It kind of makes sense to me that Ti is based around basic assumptions on an object, i.e. logical principles, and Ni is impression based; assumptions vs observations.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

Because they both create a subjective idea of what the world is with incoming information.

I find that Ni focuses more on creating what it's unique world is like.

While Ti is more about creating a guide and an encyclopedia of the actual world.

As I said it's because there both subjective so they have to rely on there extroverted function to see if there subjective world is correct or not.

But I guess you could say this about any introverted function.


I guess they get mixed up because INTP and INTJ both have a thinking way of building there world.

The INTP starts out better with Ti as the world creator but has to rely on Ne for information which works, but could be better.

The INTJ has the more abstract Ni which is an unorganized mess yet they have Te which is a more reliable way of collecting information.


So Ti and Ni doms both have a very subjective knowledge base that they would reference.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

Velocity said:


> I have a good INTJ friend and other friends think he is the smarter one of us. And he probably is, specially if you measure IQ with the amount of knowledge a person can have. But fun things is that sometimes he can be completely off, and he wont ever hear how stupid and illogical he sounds... That is one thing we never do as a Ti user, we may be wrong but we wont be illogical.
> 
> So if you know a lots of things but sometimes got the complete backwards of what you think you knowed you probably is a Ni user..
> And if you know less about things, but atleast everything you know is processed twice or more in your brain, you probably is a Ti user.
> ...


lol I agree except I think that INTPs have more of the arrogance problem when it comes to information, as in when we think we are right and our logic says we are how are we wrong? But we could have missed some important detail and not know about it. Yet since we have already created a logical path that makes sense we go on thinking that we are right when we could be very wrong. 

While I find INTJs are a little more open to the idea that they can be wrong and that there is stuff that they don't know and if they wanted to know they would go about a practical more factual way of figuring it out.


But your right that the INTPs logic is usually not wrong, just a missed variable more something.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> Lol, you aren't even refuting what I said; just ignoring my explanation - complete with a dictionary definition - and saying I'm wrong while throwing in a bunch of pre-assumed conclusions about various functions and how you have interpreted them. I'm done with this.


Just providing a dictionary definition isn't proving anything either. I don't agree with your conclusions. You are confusing Ti with Ni. It's that simple. Ni doesn't connect the subjective dots to form opinions, ideas, or theories. That is Ti. You haven't explained how there is a difference. You tried to say that Ni and Ti are the same, but for J functions drawing conclusions. I can't agree with that, as it diminishes the P functions. 

You are in the group of people who thinks Ni does what Ti actually does. I doubt you think Si does what Ti does, though. You probably think Si is all about tradition, rule following, and being boring. Somehow Ni is connecting dots, but Si is unable to do the same.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

TruthDismantled said:


> Why is introverted thinking and introverted intuition often confused?
> 
> I've also noticed that many people who get high Ti scores on Cognitive Functions tests also get high Ni scores. In what ways are they similar?


Ti is abstracted from the object, philosophical has an internal frame of reference based on general logical principles as standard to evaluate things, it has the ability to get the information(perception) and *organize*(judgment) it in different original ways, it gets confused a lot with Ni beucause of that. But Ni is subjective *perception* it is not intentional like Ti, you don't choose to perceive something, their judgment, intention and evaluation is turned outward, therefore external feedback is more important to the Pi-Je. A lot of INTPs mistype as INFJ/INTJ.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

reckful said:


> I didn't say you "got that from what _ quoted." On the contrary, I asked how you could possibly have read what I quoted and then gone on to make that assertion.
> 
> And here again, your aversion to admitting your mistakes is just causing you to post word salads that are obviously inconsistent with the facts. And yes, I mean "facts." Whether Jung was right or wrong about what he said is a matter of opinion, but what he actually said is (in many cases) a matter of fact. And Jung clearly said that "in order to go there" — i.e., creatively interpret what they observe and then make decisions and take actions based on those interpretations — Ne-doms do not need to make use of either of "the J functions."
> 
> When Jung describes N (Ni and Ne both) as "an active, creative process that puts into the object just as much as it takes out," what is it that you think N is "putting into the object" if it doesn't involve any "interpretation" or "connecting the dots"?_


_
It's possible that Jung contradicted himself, as he specifically said the P functions do not interpret objects. I'm more inclined to figure out what he was getting at, instead of assuming a contradiction. 

What we put into the object is our personal experiences and previous observations. What we get out of them is identifying new objects and/or pieces of an object. This doesn't have to be interpreting, as much as relating it to known observations to form a clearer picture of the new object for identification. 

Taking action doesn't have to involve a judgement. Se/Ne users are active in their observation. I'm sure that is why Jung uses that wording. Se users will pick up and object and observe it through action. Ne will take something intangible and explore it. It doesn't have to be subconscious to exclude judgement. 

I'm not even sure why you are so concerned about the action part of the P functions, or what that has to do with judging?_


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

I score high on Ti and Si, instead of Ti and Ni but I've seen the confusion a lot of times in the forum.

I also wish I had an answer. I'm not well-versed in the functions and they are too abstract for my understanding.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

I find my Ni draws conclusions from Obtained information and Ti is the filter that chooses the best conclusion. Ti is the little voice that says 'no Ni, that would be stupid' like playing duck duck goose with ideas. I think the reason they get mixed up is the functions are both abstract and work internally toward combining and classifying ideas. Ni creates them with subconscious condensing and is not judgmental, Ti actively seeks to sorts them and is judgmental yet flexible, always rearranging the way it sees the world according to new data provided by Ni.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Kavik said:


> I find my Ni draws conclusions from Obtained information and Ti is the filter that chooses the best conclusion. Ti is the little voice that says 'no Ni, that would be stupid' like playing duck duck goose with ideas. I think the reason they get mixed up is the functions are both abstract and work internally toward combining and classifying ideas. Ni creates them with subconscious condensing and is not judgmental, Ti actively seeks to sorts them and is judgmental yet flexible, always rearranging the way it sees the world according to new data.


What I find difficult to fully understand is this idea of perceiving before judging and judging before perceiving. Obviously you can't judge something you haven't perceived, so is judging before perceiving simply deliberating on the initial perception for less time than a perception dominant person would? Not caring to see whether it makes rational sense on its own but wondering at the perception and where it leads? Having more faith in perceptions?

I find that I often try to see events through a new lens then judge whether it makes sense to me, kind of like trial and error. So I would think "maybe I'm seeing this wrong and this person actually has good intentions", then I sort through which makes more logical sense. It's like random ideas come to me ("ah hah!") then I realize it doesn't work ("okay maybe not this then... *10 seconds later*... "ah hah!".. "hmm, no again"... "ah hah!" etc.) LOL.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> Ni doesn't connect the subjective dots to form opinions, ideas, or theories. That is Ti. You haven't explained how there is a difference. You tried to say that Ni and Ti are the same, but for J functions drawing conclusions. I can't agree with that, as it diminishes the P functions.
> 
> You are in the group of people who thinks Ni does what Ti actually does. I doubt you think Si does what Ti does, though. You probably think Si is all about tradition, rule following, and being boring. Somehow Ni is connecting dots, but Si is unable to do the same.


Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. You keep coming up with bullshit out of left field that I've never said.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Necrophilous said:


> I guess the best example I could give is the association with Swords with the intellect in the tarot is the result of Ni with it's judging functions and the association with Bulls with strength is something that is Ne.


Because the former is not known outside of tarot but the latter something that is more colloquially known? However, how would we separate that from Je that would be aware that people generally agree on that bulls = strength as a factual nugget?


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Because the former is not known outside of tarot but the latter something that is more colloquially known? However, how would we separate that from Je that would be aware that people generally agree on that bulls = strength as a factual nugget?


That is why I'm generally uncertain about it.

I disown what I said earlier.


----------



## Quercetin (Dec 5, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> Connecting the dots would be seeing an umbrella and then seeing rain and understanding that the umbrella is used to keep rain off of you. That is too far for the P functions to go.


P functions are unable to understand functional concepts of said objects analytically? Is that what Si is for in the case of INTP?


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

TruthDismantled said:


> What I find difficult to fully understand is this idea of perceiving before judging and judging before perceiving. Obviously you can't judge something you haven't perceived, so is judging before perceiving simply deliberating on the initial perception for less time than a perception dominant person would? Not caring to see whether it makes rational sense on its own but wondering at the perception and where it leads? Having more faith in perceptions?
> 
> I find that I often try to see events through a new lens then judge whether it makes sense to me, kind of like trial and error. So I would think "maybe I'm seeing this wrong and this person actually has good intentions", then I sort through which makes more logical sense. It's like random ideas come to me ("ah hah!") then I realize it doesn't work ("okay maybe not this then... *10 seconds later*... "ah hah!".. "hmm, no again"... "ah hah!" etc.) LOL.


I see perceiving and judging a preference like some have a preference to act out/see an action before thinking of the best conclusion, or thinking then acting. Everyone uses both methods but at different intervals and orders. I'm ignoring J and P as judgers and perceivers as defined by Jung right now. Each individual function has either a perceiving or judging preference. example: Ti judges and Ni perceives. Depending on the function hierarchy, either judging or perceiving lords over the other. That does not mean the judging would be 100% ridged. Perceiving and Judging abilities check and balance each other. 

I would say the N or S function collects information (neutral and unbiased) and then depending on the Tertiary function, that is the first to judge or perceive, then the Dom function does the opposite. I'm not sure what the inferior function is doing, maybe swaying the preference of judging or perceiving....I don't see why you wouldn't be able to perceive something you haven't judged or vice versa, the methods can draw from raw subconscious information, checking what you already know against new information by various ways of preferred functions. example: Judging (This fits or does not fit what I already have). Perceiving (look at this shiny thing, I have an idea)


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

reckful said:


> his descriptions make it clear that he didn't limit them to an _information gathering_ role (or, as you put it, "observation, identification, and storage of data").


This is absolutely true and is why later theorists such as Beebe ascribed archetypal origins as drivers of these functions depending on their stacking. Moreover, I'd assert that individuation is the assimilation of the complexes that used to act autonomously from these drives into conscious control. i.e. a reaction is a response that diffuses the stimuli whereas an activity is a response that forms a relationship or series of exchanges with the stimuli; the exchange is an active participation where the stimuli does not fade into the background but instead is held with attention and begins a transformation. The nature of such a transformation depends on the cognitive function of choice. '

I'll give an example with developed Ti-Se. My apprehension of physical objects does not end with just the awareness of them. I must interact with it by picking them up, juggle them to get a feel of their weight/center, apply tensile pressure to judge the strength of their material, smell it, stare/rotate at it from all angles. From this interaction, I get a sense of what this object is and how they can be manipulated. The object is transformed into the aforementioned properties. 

Now the subjugation of Ni in the service of Ti-Se comes out as playing around / imagining different use values from the previous apprehension of the object. This would be certainly be different from say the subjugation of Ni to just Ti where it attempts to apprehend the object by arriving at a "signified" representation (semiotics) or what this object ultimately means in relation to the whole. And that in turn would be different from the subjugation of Ti to Ni where the "signified(s)" are present but there remains contradictions that must be fine-tuned by Ti. 

Another distinction is the function "world-view" perspectives. Leading Ti apprehension is the drive to understand what things are as truths or logic certainties. With subjective truths, one begins with a foundation of ideas that are axiomatic to which the function's drive in life follows from accepting/rejecting/creating/determination of such truth relations. Leading Ni apprehension, which I'm less certain of, is the expansion of the web of the signified through the integration of experienced signifiers. With subjective signs, the aim is establish a framework of omniscience where all information can be related. Of course, these world-views would ignore other archetypes such as the self, which would seek integration of opposite functions. e.g. Ti truth values bind relations between objects but ignores self-object value relations which can only be realized through a Fe collective. Ni web of the signified ignores the mapping back to the space of signifiers which must be realized through Se instantiations.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Quercetin said:


> P functions are unable to understand functional concepts of said objects analytically? Is that what Si is for in the case of INTP?


The P functions can hypothesize based on previous observations, which they use to identify the object. So in a sense they can analyze objects. My point was that drawing conclusions from a new object without anything to go on, isn't what the P functions do. The J functions can take the multiple objects, already identified by the P functions, and connect the dots between them and then draw a conclusion.


----------

