# Is this Ne or Ni? An analogy



## hosihime (May 22, 2014)

Hi everyone, 

I've always had a hard time differentiating between the two intuition functions because different people seem to describe them differently, and just a wordy, abstract, description usually wouldn't be too helpful for me as I like to learn through examples and tend think in images/analogies. 

What do you think the following best describes? 

Imagine a crystal figurine which fell to the floor and is consequently broken to pieces. The pieces are now scattered across the room; one in this corner, one in that corner, some under the sofa, and so on. 

You now enter the room and see all the different pieces--you're not really sure what all these pieces are (assume you're not the owner; it may be at your friend's house and she's busy in the other room cooking or something) but being generally curious you try to collect all the pieces to try to figure out what it actually is. So you go to all corners of the room--seemingly going into different directions, but with a goal in mind to collect all the pieces you could find to try and reassemble the object. The more pieces you manage to collect the more you have a hunch, or feeling, regarding what the true nature of the object is. Halfway you can already guess that this is a crystal figurine; further along, oh, it's some sort of animal; and eventually you gather enough pieces to see that it's actually a crystal horse. You turn it around to have a better understanding, and, ooh, you've found an inscription that it's made in China. So now you have a reasonable understanding about what that object is. 

This is how my mind works. Do I use Ne or Ni? Thanks in advance


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

"Imagine a crystal figurine which fell to the floor and is consequently broken to pieces. The pieces are now scattered across the room; one in this corner, one in that corner, some under the sofa, and so on. "

Sounds like Se, which would then mean you have Ni too

"You now enter the room and see all the different pieces--you're not really sure what all these pieces are (assume you're not the owner; it may be at your friend's house and she's busy in the other room cooking or something) but being generally curious you try to collect all the pieces to try to figure out what it actually is. So you go to all corners of the room--seemingly going into different directions, but with a goal in mind to collect all the pieces you could find to try and reassemble the object. The more pieces you manage to collect the more you have a hunch, or feeling, regading what the true nature of the object is. Halfway you can already guess that this is a crystal figurine; further along, oh, it's some sort of animal; and eventually you gather enough pieces to see that it's actually a crystal horse. You turn it around to have a better understanding, and, ooh, you've found an inscription that it's made in China. So now you have a reasonable understanding about what that object is. "

Ni. Ni is taking a lot of different things, unrelated if you are using logic, and combining them together into a whole that somehow makes sense. It's about flushing out 1 idea or topic every well. People say Ni is like implosion. 

Ne is the exact opposite, an explosion. It's taking 1 idea and then expanding that in many different ways. Then that idea leds to a new idea and before you realize it you aren't even thinking about the original idea. It's all about possibilities and what ifs. 

I hope this picture helps. Also Obama is an ENFJ, if you want to hear Ni in another person then listen to the way Obama speaks as he uses Ni a lot. 











<font color="#333333">


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

Ni


----------



## hosihime (May 22, 2014)

Hi guys, thanks for the replies.

In the past I used to think I was an Ne user because typical Ni descriptions always seemed to border on mysticism, as if it's a sudden insight or premonition we get out of nowhere. But now that I have a better understanding of Ni, I guess it's not so sudden at all, because we've been carefully collecting and analyzing data points internally before we actually reach to a conclusion or a prediction.

To the outsider I guess I may seem like an Ne user because they don't usually see that I actually have a goal that I want to work towards, and because they don't see me piecing all these information together in my head.

For example, I may seemingly ask questions that diverge--but this is actually to obtain facts/data points that I later on will analyze as a whole to reach a conclusion.

Or, people may think I pursue random activities--but actually I already have a clear goal in mind that I want to reach eventually in the future, and what I'm doing now is collecting the necessary knowledge and skills that in my opinion will be useful for me when working towards my goal. Although it may appear random, the activities I chose to pursue are actually carefully calculated.

Does this make any sense? Or am I a Ne user after all?


----------



## goodthankyou (Mar 25, 2016)

hosihime said:


> So you go to all corners of the room--seemingly going into different directions, but with a goal in mind to collect all the pieces you could find to try and reassemble the object. The more pieces you manage to collect the more you have a hunch, or feeling, regarding what the true nature of the object is. Halfway you can already guess that this is a crystal figurine; further along, oh, it's some sort of animal; and eventually you gather enough pieces to see that it's actually a crystal horse. You turn it around to have a better understanding, and, ooh, you've found an inscription that it's made in China. So now you have a reasonable understanding about what that object is.


Wow! Haha ... this is the best description of Ni I've ever heard! I've been trying to come up with an analogy to describe my thought processes, but maybe I'll just use yours, tyvm.

My best so far is just like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Finding pieces here and there, and if something doesn't fit, I put it aside for the moment. But if it stays by the way for too long, I might discard it completely.

Still ... I do sometimes find times in the future where it suddenly seems to fit somewhere, so I dig it up back again!

I guess I never really throw anything away that way.


----------



## NostalgicWizard (May 28, 2016)

*What is Intuition? (according to MBTI)*

Because intuitives are primarily defined in MBTI as: focused more on future possibilities > than they are present reality, which can read either like "planning too much" or the more likely alternative, "more in their imagination than in the real world," and _because_ intuitives are primarily defined as: focused on the big picture and key implications > over all the details and facts, then it would seem that the fundamental definition of intuition MBTI is going for is a kind of subconscious judgement process which simply *automatically assumes relevant information*. 

That is, intuition is defined as being able to look at normal things, or think long enough, that *through one's experience or taste, one strongly believes the potential, importance or scope of something *(especially something possible and not yet existing)* that others cannot see for themselves.* It is a type of mental weight someone has toward and about something which _isn't there_ or _doesn't yet exist._ 

Of course we can explain why someone has such a weight toward assumed information: we simply look no further than their own unique experiences, tastes, and psyche. Intuition tunes out sensory information in preference for its own visions. Now, they say that everyone senses and everyone "intuits." Because MBTI intuition lists off several cognitive aspects to how they define an intuitive type, and because these aspects seem at times _disassociated_, I attempted to summarize the overall process that seems to be going on.

In any case, take the overall preference that MBTI seems to be defining in xNxx types, and use it as a basis for defining the intuitive functions. So far, I see intuition as a type of ignoring of sensory information and specific details, and instead attuning to an imagination of possibilities, of possible future events, and of how things belong and their generalized essence. When one attempts to generalize a detail as fitting with a larger concept, they are using their imagination to envision this classification, as the classification doesn't exist externally in reality.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Ne..you're making this easy cause it matched perfectly with Si in the other thread


----------



## hosihime (May 22, 2014)

Hi guys thanks for all the response!
@goodthankyou glad that you found it useful! I could also relate to your analogy, especially the part about storing it for now and working on it again later. Also about not throwing away information! You never know when that piece will fit somewhere else.. 
@Felipe thanks for the feedback! Could you explain why you think it's Ne? I also replied to the other thread, interested to hear your thoughts on that one! http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/852578-do-i-use-se-si.html


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

hosihime said:


> @Felipe thanks for the feedback! Could you explain why you think it's Ne?


Based on your description: "...You now enter the room and see all the different pieces--you're not really sure what all these pieces are (assume you're not the owner; *it may be at your friend's house* and she's busy in the other room cooking or something) but being generally curious you try to *collect all the pieces to try to figure out* what it actually is.

Those parts that I selected in bold are generally Ne because unlike Ni, Ne is more speculative and think about different possibilities until it finds the correct one.

continuing: "...*the more pieces you try to collect, the more you get a hunch*" 

Again, Ne needs the external to be stimulated, so the more you gather information the clearer the overrall picture becomes. Ni is the opposite I think, it tries to exclude the biggest amount of redundant information and stick with essential ones (I don't know much about Ni, you have to ask some Ni users here)

"...*Halfway you can already guess that this is a crystal figurine*"

I think you got the point. My guess is xNxP (but only taking into account cognitive functions, ignoring judging and perceiving)


----------



## Jimmy (Jan 31, 2016)

@hosihime, only thing i'll add to watch is that both Ne and Ni can work towards an end goal, they just do it in opposing ways. So I tend to think of Ne as an explosion into a million pieces, while Ni is an implosion without the bang (if that makes sense). I think main thing too is that Ni will tend to know exactly what it's aiming for and can end in points of certainty. That idea might be counterbalanced by your 9 tendencies, which would then make it all harder to tell.

So yeah it can be confusing because they have similar goals (being intuitive functions), just opposite methods, it can then be hard to tell depending on what stage of each you're in, so if you're just starting with Ni and ending with Ne things can seem very similar. That's also where I get confused because I can notice where I use both, but my Ne wins out every time and the cycle continues. Also I'm no where near as solid as someone with healthy Ni within their stack.

Another (possibly minor) point is that you seem to have an ability to be extremely clear and follow your lines of thought over very long stretches, as someone with high Ne I struggle hugely to do that, it's a bit easier online though, haha. It's personal xp but I've found those high in Ni have an ability to make things insanely clear very quickly.


----------



## hosihime (May 22, 2014)

@Felipe Thanks for clarifying!

Some remarks: 



> Based on your description: "...You now enter the room and see all the different pieces--you're not really sure what all these pieces are (assume you're not the owner; *it may be at your friend's house* ...


For me it was just an analogy to make it clear that it's not at your own house, ie. to stress that you didn't know beforehand what the actual form of the figure was.



> but being generally curious you try to *collect all the pieces to try to figure out* what it actually is.





> Those parts that I selected in bold are generally Ne because unlike Ni, Ne is more speculative and think about different possibilities until it finds the correct one.


Based on my current understanding of Ne vs Ni (which to be clear I'm still not certain about), I would argue that in this case you would still converge to get to the horse figure, ie. still converging to one truth/concept/idea. Yes the pieces are scattered all over the place but your goal is one, to get a wholesome understanding of the object instead of the individual pieces, and if you reassemble it you should still get a horse, not a cat, for example.

In my head, Ne is like being given a box of legos and you think what can you do with the pieces--you can build a ship, a house, a spaceship and so on; ie. it's diverging, not converging or limited to one idea. 

But again I may still misunderstand the difference between Ne and Ni, and perhaps my example was not a perfect analogy after all. Thanks, the more feedback I get, the more I can refine my understanding of MBTI functions and the mechanics of how the system as a whole works. ["The more pieces you manage to collect the more you have a hunch, or feeling, regarding what the true nature of the object is."  ]


----------



## hosihime (May 22, 2014)

Jimmy said:


> @hosihime, only thing i'll add to watch is that both Ne and Ni can work towards an end goal, they just do it in opposing ways. So I tend to think of Ne as an explosion into a million pieces, while Ni is an implosion without the bang (if that makes sense). I think main thing too is that Ni will tend to know exactly what it's aiming for and can end in points of certainty. That idea might be counterbalanced by your 9 tendencies, which would then make it all harder to tell.
> 
> So yeah it can be confusing because they have similar goals (being intuitive functions), just opposite methods, it can then be hard to tell depending on what stage of each you're in, so if you're just starting with Ni and ending with Ne things can seem very similar. That's also where I get confused because I can notice where I use both, but my Ne wins out every time and the cycle continues. Also I'm no where near as solid as someone with healthy Ni within their stack.


I agree that there are certainly overlaps! After all, they're both intuitive functions, I guess. For me, I have a personal goal since my teens that I'd like to achieve, which has remained quite constant over the years in its essence. The way it's changed is that it has become more fleshed out and tangible over the years, thanks to the new information, skills, and insights I've collected all these time. Some skills and knowledge I consciously seek for the purpose of reaching that goal; but to the outsider who's not aware of my goal, I may seem easily sidetracked because I seemingly pursue random activities, whereas in reality it's a calculated move. Not sure which function it is, but at least that's how I operate.



> Another (possibly minor) point is that you seem to have an ability to be extremely clear and follow your lines of thought over very long stretches, as someone with high Ne I struggle hugely to do that, it's a bit easier online though, haha. It's personal xp but I've found those high in Ni have an ability to make things insanely clear very quickly.


Hahahaha thanks! I'll take that as another compliment I guess  I just like having things clearly laid out in my mind; if I don't have a mental map of how things and concepts relate to one another, I get frustrated. For me it's often an indicator for whether I have understood something or not. I also somehow like using analogies, like in this example. It's actually a tool to help myself understand things more easily--but having my thoughts arranged systematically turns out to also be useful in helping my tutees understand my explanations better in class (I love teaching btw, so I guess it's a useful skill to have for this purpose).


----------



## Jimmy (Jan 31, 2016)

hosihime said:


> I agree that there are certainly overlaps! After all, they're both intuitive functions, I guess. For me, I have a personal goal since my teens that I'd like to achieve, which has remained quite constant over the years in its essence. The way it's changed is that it has become more fleshed out and tangible over the years, thanks to the new information, skills, and insights I've collected all these time. Some skills and knowledge I consciously seek for the purpose of reaching that goal; but to the outsider who's not aware of my goal, I may seem easily sidetracked because I seemingly pursue random activities, whereas in reality it's a calculated move. Not sure which function it is, but at least that's how I operate.
> 
> Hahahaha thanks! I'll take that as another compliment I guess  I just like having things clearly laid out in my mind; if I don't have a mental map of how things and concepts relate to one another, I get frustrated. For me it's often an indicator for whether I have understood something or not. I also somehow like using analogies, like in this example. It's actually a tool to help myself understand things more easily--but having my thoughts arranged systematically turns out to also be useful in helping my tutees understand my explanations better in class (I love teaching btw, so I guess it's a useful skill to have for this purpose).


Haha, you better take it as another compliment! I wasn't going to say anything here, because I think it's all well contained, however I do think this lends to intuitive over sensor. It'll be interesting to see if that's just me though, just wanted to mention that  Totallyyyyyy, if I didn't have analogy and metaphor I'd never ever get a point across, unfortunately my minds eye does not speaky the english xD


----------



## hosihime (May 22, 2014)

@Jimmy

Just for fun, to illustrate the evolution of that personal goal of mine conceptually over the years:

In my teens:










Now:










Hopefully in 5 years:










So over time the details of what I plan to do became more fleshed out


----------



## Jimmy (Jan 31, 2016)

@hosihime hahaha, are you saying you're aiming to become starscream?? which would be awesome btw! If not I can always refer to you as 'top gun' from here on in xD Woops almost forgot to say, in all seriousness that would seem closer to Ni than Ne for suresies


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Hmm, well as for Ne or Ni it is going to depend on which definition you take.

Paraphrasing of Ne & Ni:

* *





Looking at Jung (where the initial ideas of functions came from), _both _Ni and Ne are about possibility. Jung does reference how Ni has the same enthusiasm for possibilities as Ne, however Ni is searching for possibilities within the mind rather than eternal objects (that would be Ne). There is NO mention of one generating more possibilities (Ne) and another narrowing down possibilities (Ni) and I suspect such narrowing down of options is a partially unconscious rational function.

Ni is moving from inner image to inner image, exploring each image (just like Ne with outer objects) This is where the "visual" or "symbolic" nature comes to Ni.

The best way to describe Ni, it's having an object come to mind that in some way represents your inner state, or a potential future event. Jung gives an example of a man experiencing vertigo and what he sees in his minds eye is a man shot by an arrow twirling and falling to the ground. This was his experience of vertigo (it was not 'felt' in all of its intensities, that was more Si). Another example was a lady who came to Jung because she had a "black snake in her belly". Not literally of course! that's what she saw in her minds eye. I believe she made prediction from it, needing 10 sessions with Jung. She knew she was cured when the the snake had turned golden and came out of her mouth. (I am paraphrasing here so I may have got the details wrong).

None of these images are literal things. They are symbols _relevant _to the _individual_. Described to another person they can be seen as crazy lol.

Ne on the other hand is more focused on exploring external possibilities. The picture I got from reading Jung's description was a person who is forever changing his world around him, always seeking something new or undiscovered. He is the person who establishes new and inventive ways which can be quite innovative for current problems, but before long is off again searching for the next endevour. He moves on before he can reap the rewarded from the seeds he sows. He is exploring possibilities, but these are external to him compared to the previous Ni examples.
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

What I have read of Beren (limited).
Ne seems to be more aware of possibilities and the potential within things/objects/people which includes being able to see things from multiple perspectives. It is the awareness of reading between facts can connecting the dots.

Ni on the other hand is an awareness of mental symbols of profound meaning. They are more in tune with seeing how the current object/situation may develop.
Understanding the 8 Jungian Cognitive Processes (8 Functions)

Which to me seems to draw similar definitions to how Socionics defines the functions. Ne aware of how the current situation can possibly lead to other situations, in comparison to Ni seeing the path through time.

To Note:
Whilst Ni has been described as "_seeing the future_" or "_mystical_l", I have had another suggest that it's really just an awareness of where something is going perhaps based on pattern recognition. It's not what will happen, rather what is most likely to happen.

Another thing is, Ni _can be wrong_. No one can see the future (unless time travel is invented haha), one can however be good at predicting the future.

Disclaimer:
Also I have paraphrased a lot of this information. My brain does not remember large slabs of text exactly as is an I don't have the desire to research all of this to ensure it is 100% correct. Correct me if I am wrong, don't take it as complete truth.




Taking that into consideration

Taking the many fragments, and generating possibilities of what it could be --> Ne.
As the pieces come together and you begin to recognize what is in front of you --> a thinking process
Even afterwards mentally generating possibilities for how the ornament came to be broken --> Ne


Perceiving a symbol, dream of, or having some sense or odd feeling the crystal figurine was going to be broken (purhaps for no apparent reason a the time) --> Ni
Perceive what this broken figurine may lead to, how the situation is likely to unfold --> Ni


----------



## Once Upon A Time (May 23, 2016)

I also think this seems like Ni. Gathering all those pieces to make a whole.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

Ksara said:


> Hmm, well as for Ne or Ni it is going to depend on which definition you take.
> 
> Paraphrasing of Ne & Ni:
> 
> ...


I'm not going to disagree with the definition but I will say it's not the most useful for understanding Ni and Ne.

The most simple way to understand Ni is as a single focal point with data coming from the all sides to build that build that 1 point. Ni is 1 main idea. I imagine it like a star. 









Ne is the exact opposite. Ne expands one idea into many. Each idea leads to another which leads to another. I imagine it like a hierarchy or tree:


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Toroidal said:


> I'm not going to disagree with the definition but I will say it's not the most useful for understanding Ni and Ne.
> 
> The most simple way to understand Ni is as a single focal point with data coming from the all sides to build that build that 1 point. Ni is 1 main idea. I imagine it like a star.
> 
> ...


My issue with your concise definition here is that it is inconsistent with the definition Jung gives:


Jung said:


> Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, *chasing after every possibility* in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself.


There is no discussion of Ni condensing to one idea. There is a comparison of Ni seeking possibilities within the mind itself and the inner objects, and with Ne seeking possibilities in the external world and outer objects.

If we take Lenore Thompson's definitions of Ne and Ni, Ne about connecting the dots and Ni about changing perspectives, both lead to infinite possibilities. There are always another way of connecting the dots (and more dots to find) just as there is always another way one can perceive something. She actually believes that 'Ah ha' moment is an Ne thing connecting the dots in a particular way.
I will say her definition is apparently inconsistent with MBTI and with Beren's definition (who appears to be more inline with MBTI).

Beren's would place both connecting the dots and changing perspective as an Ne thing. Ni is more attuned to where things are going which tie into their subjective inner objects they perceive. "conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations" is not restrictive to one idea. I again do not see any specific point where the definition states Ni takes many data points and converges it into one idea. If anything Ne described as " picking up meanings and interconnections" and "noticing what is not said and threads of meaning emerging across multiple contexts" could be interpreted as taking many data points and converging it to an idea of what it all means.



Side note: I actually think that the 'meaning' intuition arrives at is an unconscious/semi-unconscious rational function getting involved. The _perceptions_ of possibilities or potential in outer objects (Ne) or inner objects (Ni) is intuition. Simply being aware of the potential objects hold, or the potential of the inner imaged is intuition.
That "ah ha" moment, or that profound meaning found determined by rational functions. That is any possibility that is seen as "true" or "what something is" has been influenced by thinking, and any possibility that "is worth pursuing" or "has some worth" to the individual has been influenced by feeling.
I don't believe functions work in isolation nor do I believe if one function is on another must be off. I believe all four functions operate in the mind, however we are generally only capable of focusing our conscious attention on one aspect, while other aspects operate unnoticed. This is what I think so far, I don't claim this part as correct.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

Ksara said:


> My issue with your concise definition here is that it is inconsistent with the definition Jung gives:
> 
> 
> There is no discussion of Ni condensing to one idea. There is a comparison of Ni seeking possibilities within the mind itself and the inner objects, and with Ne seeking possibilities in the external world and outer objects.
> ...


Jung was an INFJ, his descriptions and his POV will reflect a INFJ bias. Likewise mine will reflect an ENFP bias. I think what you are noticing is the difference between Jung's Ti and my Te.


----------



## nunchi (May 15, 2016)

I'm so confused now. I assumed that Ni was more linear in its approaches. Ni sees a table and it connects it to one association, then to another, then to another one but in the end it all can relatively go back to that table. Ne sees the same table and may at first connect it to the same initial association but instead of continuing on that linear path, it will leave the table in the dust following intuits off associations. 

How could you test which one you dominantly you use out..? :/ Im pretty certain about Ni but in the past I was convinced I was a Ne user so Im no longer trusting my convictions lol


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

nunchi said:


> I'm so confused now. I assumed that Ni was more linear in its approaches. Ni sees a table and it connects it to one association, then to another, then to another one but in the end it all can relatively go back to that table. Ne sees the same table and may at first connect it to the same initial association but instead of continuing on that linear path, it will leave the table in the dust following intuits off associations.
> 
> How could you test which one you dominantly you use out..? :/ Im pretty certain about Ni but in the past I was convinced I was a Ne user so Im no longer trusting my convictions lol


Ni is like the conclusion of a standard paper. Ne is like the brainstorming process. 

IRL you can see Ni in Obama ENFJ. He will often combine a lot of different, not logically related topics to make 1 cohesion point or statement. Here is an example of his Ni failing to work. 





Eric Bolling on Fox News appears to be an ENFP and you can see his Ne very well at 50s. Ne users will jump from one idea to the next and next and next. At 1:18 you can see that as well when he jumps from talking about Hillary to Trump. 




Again Ni users will use possibilities to flush out 1 idea or 1 point or 1 scene or 1 emphasis. Ne users jump from possibility to possibility, idea to idea, point to point.

I would also say there is a synergy between Ni/Ti and Te/Ne where users of both functions have intuition supercharged, making it easier to tell. Te constrains Ni and Ti contains Ne from what I've seen in INTJs and ENTPs. Ti wants structure and multiple points to emphasis a topic, so Ni is more easily scene from the Ti structure. Te wants to cut to the chase, so Ne is easily scene with blunt Te speech.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Toroidal said:


> Jung was an INFJ, his descriptions and his POV will reflect a INFJ bias. Likewise mine will reflect an ENFP bias. I think what you are noticing is the difference between Jung's Ti and my Te.


Jung saw himself (by his definitions) an Introverted thinking type with a preference for intuition, later on he found it difficult to distinguish between Ti or Ni dom (that's what I believe I have come across). This is not the same as MBTI INFJ.

Whilst I understand we all have a bias, I don't understand how this is a matter of point of view. It's a matter of what reference you are taking, be that Jung, Beren's, Socionics, yourself, a blend, etc. All have their own Ni/Ne (some consistent, some inconsistent between them). Even though they use the same label, they are not the same thing unless they have the same definition.


----------



## Toroidal (Apr 14, 2016)

Ksara said:


> Jung saw himself (by his definitions) an Introverted thinking type with a preference for intuition, later on he found it difficult to distinguish between Ti or Ni dom (that's what I believe I have come across). This is not the same as MBTI INFJ.
> 
> Whilst I understand we all have a bias, I don't understand how this is a matter of point of view. It's a matter of what reference you are taking, be that Jung, Beren's, Socionics, yourself, a blend, etc. All have their own Ni/Ne (some consistent, some inconsistent between them). Even though they use the same label,* they are not the same thing unless they have the same definition*.


That is a Ti bias. You are a Ti user struggling to reconcile all the different theories regarding intuition. You could make that same argument for the other functions as well. But what's the point? You can't see the forest for the trees. Step back and try to understand the core nature of the function instead of focusing nitpicking the definition. 

I agree that Ti and Ni can be difficult to distinguish. That would make sense that Jung would have trouble telling the two apart as they intertwine in an INFJ.


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

Ne:






Ni:


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

I have been meaning to get to this. exam season where I am -.-



Toroidal said:


> That is a Ti bias. You are a Ti user struggling to reconcile all the different theories regarding intuition. You could make that same argument for the other functions as well. But what's the point? You can't see the forest for the trees. Step back and try to understand the core nature of the function instead of focusing nitpicking the definition.


Talk about assumption haha 

Whether talking about the forest or the tree, there is still consistency because they are one of the same. They are apart of the same underlying ecological system. What the people who write the theory have to say is inconsistent with what you have written. If there is an expert who has spent time studying people and personality theory who does define Ni/Ne in the way you have then point me in that direction, I am happy to learn something new.


Discussing definitions =/= Ti
I'm actually translating from an inner image of lines drawn in the sand, and with it the word arbitrary that comes to mind, in a way a realization that has lead to a different perspective on things. An inner image with personal meaning, you could say that is Ni.

Personally I have chosen to keep viewpoints separate simply because my mind can too easily merge them together based on assumptions simply because they share similar labels/ideas. That's not a struggle, however that would be an assumption on my part and I would have failed to recognise these systems are not all the same thing.




> I agree that Ti and Ni can be difficult to distinguish. That would make sense that Jung would have trouble telling the two apart as they intertwine in an INFJ.


Jung didn't identify as feeler so to me INFJ doesn't make much sense.

It is possible a person can have the first two functions Ti-Ni. Jung did believed this possible. They would be an introverted thinker who prefers intuition.
Myres writes in her book that this is possible but not common. Most people are Ti-Ne (to keep with the example). To me Ti-Ni would suggest an individual who has very strong introvert tendencies and would test INTx, the x due to no significant outer perception/judgment shown or identified with. They have a preference for thinking, intuition and introversion which isn't INFJ who have a preference for feeling.
I'm not sure the current view the MBTI takes on this but they seem to steer clear of the functions.
Even socionics point to a Ti dom having strong (but devalued) Ni. They are still Ti dom.

I don't buy into the Grant stack (INFJ being Ni - Fe - Ti - Se) and so a type with those functions must be INFJ even if their thinking and intuition is preferred over feeling and sensation.

This may just be where we disagree *shrugs* oh well. I'm happy to keep the discussion going if you wish


----------

