# Got this idea about Ni. What do you think?



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

Sorry for the umpteenth question .
Is it correct to say that a Ti dom. math student (for example) would understand the subject throgh the math language (that have to make sense for him and to be consistent to make sense and the understanding is a consequence of that) , while an Ni dom. would have a personal internal ''language'' to understand it (and he will use the standard language to objectify his iedas,the language itself isn't enough or useful to understand or to formulate ideas)?
So , a Ti dom. would try to solve and understand a problem using equations and other instruments simply , instead an Ni dom. would use that language to solve it , but the understanding of it would be on another level , not the coherence of language itself.
It seems a matter of internal language , that is the reason of my question : i want to test if i've got the point .


----------



## Metaplanar (Apr 2, 2011)

Carola said:


> Sorry for the umpteenth question .
> Is it correct to say that a Ti dom. math student (for example) would understand the subject throgh the math language (that have to make sense for him and to be consistent to make sense and the understanding is a consequence of that) , while an Ni dom. would have a personal internal ''language'' to understand it (and he will use the standard language to objectify his iedas,the language itself isn't enough or useful to understand or to formulate ideas)?
> So , a Ti dom. would try to solve and understand a problem using equations and other instruments simply , instead an Ni dom. would use that language to solve it , but the understanding of it would be on another level , not the coherence of language itself.
> It seems a matter of internal language , that is the reason of my question : i want to test if i've got the point .


From the Ni perspective, that seems about right. I always first need to "translate" math before I can understand it. I don't exactly know about Ti, but I guess especially Ti in connection with Si would work like that.

And now about the searching for truth thing: I think Ni is very much searching for truth. The difference is, it's searching for the hidden truth behind, not the truth of logically consistent definitions. Definitions are arbitrary.
To take the tiger example, for Ni, "being a tiger" is not defined by external expressions like having stripes and paws and a tail, but there is an intangible essence of what a tiger really *is* that connects those outwardly perceivable traits. Of course, being so hard to define or quantify, this inner quality can be perceived differently by different people and there can be several equally true interpretations while usually none of them hits the mark exactly.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

Metaplanar said:


> From the Ni perspective, that seems about right. I always first need to "translate" math before I can understand it. I don't exactly know about Ti, but I guess especially Ti in connection with Si would work like that.
> 
> And now about the searching for truth thing: I think Ni is very much searching for truth. The difference is, it's searching for the hidden truth behind, not the truth of logically consistent definitions. Definitions are arbitrary.
> To take the tiger example, for Ni, "being a tiger" is not defined by external expressions like having stripes and paws and a tail, but there is an intangible essence of what a tiger really *is* that connects those outwardly perceivable traits. Of course, being so hard to define or quantify, this inner quality can be perceived differently by different people and there can be several equally true interpretations while usually none of them hits the mark exactly.


Thanks for the answer!
I can relate al lot to the search of an ''hidden truth'' (i would say '' hidden meaning'') , that go behind definitions that are arbitrary to me too.
I 've a lack of precison in definition and i've a need to traslate math , physics and almost every language in something other, i need for ''different plans'' of understanding (i've to understand subjects not only in a linear way, even if i've a logical understanding i could feel that it isn't enough, i've to ''see'' the deep link between things, i don't know how explain this, sorry).Do you relate to this , or is it a total different thing ?(it is most likely a combination of functions i guess, anyway) 

I'm describing this because i would like to understand how similar this process is to Ni and how different it is .So , i'll understand better this function itself (the Ni) and my own functions too.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

Souled In said:


> No no I'm not doing that at all. I am using J in all my above comments as short hand for "the judging function" not an actual term its self, as you mentioned is often seen with Jung and August, and seen quite differently with Myers and Briggs. The only reason I don't say Je or Ji in some circumstances is because I am speaking of the J function in general. I do of course respect your attempts to create a common language, and in the future I will consider writing out "the judging function." For the sakes of this discussion, I hope you will excuse me if i don't go back and change it, now that we have discussed how it is to be read. It is also good to know you are talking about singular functions, because often times people confuse a singular function with its influence from its E/I counterpart.


We might have another case of confusion here. When I am talking about a singular function, I mean Ni or Se, for example. Not S or N. Talking about S or N in general will be too broad a categorization, because the differences between Ni and Ne, for example, are so huge that talking about just "N" won't say much at all.

Also, talking about "J" would probably be too generalized as well - there are very large differences between Ti and Te, as well as Fi and Fe. I think the differences are so large that using only the letter J here is meaningless.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

NiDBiLD said:


> We might have another case of confusion here. When I am talking about a singular function, I mean Ni or Se, for example. Not S or N. Talking about S or N in general will be too broad a categorization, because the differences between Ni and Ne, for example, are so huge that talking about just "N" won't say much at all.
> 
> Also, talking about "J" would probably be too generalized as well - there are very large differences between Ti and Te, as well as Fi and Fe. I think the differences are so large that using only the letter J here is meaningless.


You wrote about Ni with minimal influence from another function.

I further wrote about Ni while having minimal influence from a J function.

I did not elaborate on which J function, because I was describing Ni in general when it has influence from a J function.

I also gave a further example of Ni working with Je, since that is more likely to happen.

The more influence J (Ji or Je), however most likely Je, has on Ni, the more the function pair will begin to change.

Yes you can define Ni by its self, but Ni isnt always by its self, and the way it interacts with other functions can also help describe it and what is related with it.

I find it hard to believe you actually find that meaningless, provided you re read it after you asked me what definition I was using for J after your initial confusion. Sorry if this seems blunt, but dude honestly I'm just trying to help the community and learn.

That being said, sure I could have broken down specific examples of Je and Ji with Ni, but for one, I'm not well versed on how Ji would work with Ni, and secondly, because that was not my main intent for the post.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

Of course it's important to explain how Ni interacts with the other functions. That's a great initiative.

I do think, though, that it's difficult to draw conclusions about how it interacts with "J" in general. Te differs so widely from Fe that I am unsure of if it is possible to say something that's both meaningful and correct while using such broad generalizations. Also, Ji and Je are fundamentally different in a very profound way. I actually think Ji functions are more like "senses" or P-functions in many ways. But that's the subject for another article. Not this one.

I am personally very interested in how ENFJs and INFJs use Ni+Fe. As a Te user it's very difficult for me to see that. For me it seems like Ni is what makes it so easy for me to neglect Fe. I see through the social games, and I can see that they too are arbitrary air castles built on opinion. Thus they are without value in my eyes. A Fe user navigates primarily by the kind of opinion constructs I am so good at not caring about, so I am very interested in NFJs for that reason. Do they see the world even remotely like I do?


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

I wouldn't say Te and Fe differ so greatly as to not be generalized, at least from my perspective since I don't largely rely on either. However, I look forward to more discussion on the relevance of the J/P distinction. Have fun with your air castles in the mean time. They I'm sure are different than earth, fire, or water castles


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

Metaplanar said:


> And now about the searching for truth thing: I think Ni is very much searching for truth. The difference is, it's searching for the hidden truth behind, not the truth of logically consistent definitions. Definitions are arbitrary.


Thanks for this. 

Ti and Ni do have completely different versions of the truth. Ti version of the truth is simply that it must be logical, it must be precise, and every piece must fall into place. Ni version of the truth is the undefinable, intangible properties that make things the way they are.

Does this sound correct, or am I just extrapolating from the way I think?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Great description of Ni. Clarified a few things for me. I also liked descriptions of it in this thread where Ni is described as ability to see archetypes or prototypes.


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

This is the best description of Ni that I've read. The fact that it all made perfect sense to me validates my opinion of being a strong Ni-user, and you have helped me understand why I find Ti-doms so bewildering and frustrating and ingenious all at the same time.

My own explanation of Ni was so over-simplified in comparison, I hesitate to share it. But it involved piles of files with arbitrary titles, containing items with numerous cross-references, organized so chaotically that only I can access the right files at the right time.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

I read only part of this, but I think you might be on to something!

I have a close INTP friend who is more concerned with finding truth than with finding a useful "not-fully-truth". I am the opposite. I enjoy models, and use them until I find better ones. I think this sounds a bit like Fi, but I don't know enough about that function.

I also enjoyed your Robert Anton Wilson reference.


----------

