# Examples of Ni depth?



## chwoey (Mar 29, 2012)

In real life people often tell me that I seem to be a very deep person. In high school I was considered an exceptionally creative, introspective thinker. I often had people tell me that they were intimidated by me, thinking that I would consider them superficial. 

Yet now, I am consistently told (on this forum) that my posts lack a particular depth that one would see from Ni-users. It makes me curious (as I have yet to see this difference) as to what Ni-depth actually looks like. 

How would one pin point when someone has strong Ni? Any quotes would be especially helpful.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Depends on how people are defining 'depth' and what their expectations are. Yes its true that introverts, in general, tend to be 'deep' to a degree, but how you would qualify this outwardly is tough. Are they talking about emotional depth, spirit, soul, intellectual depth, depth of perspective or reasoning? Also people have different levels of development and 'use' of their functions. Not every Ti-dom is Einstein. Not every Ni-dom is Nietzsche. So critiques like that often reveal more about the critic than they do you.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I absolutely hate the word "depth" as it refers to Ni. Ni and "depth" are not the same thing. If you prefer Ni, you probably have no clue that your mode is even conceivably "deep" unless you have an inflated sense of self and disoriented image of what the function is really about (which is a different dime and dance floor). 

Ni *is *a Jungian Perceiving function. Meaning that an Ni dominant prefers to perceive, specifically as mediated by a function that takes in information instead of one that decides (J) on it. People find it difficult to see the same thing Ni perceives in the same way, making it seem as though the person who prefers the function is "deep." It's not that they are deep, it's that they are abstract-minded, and their way of seeing the world around them is subjective. Abstract (N) + own way (i) = Ni, and either convoluted nonsense or visionary brilliance at its best and worst. 

I don't have offhand examples of Ni writing, but look at that of INFJ and INTJ around here, and you will notice patterns such as the following:


Rambling - Ni language tends to start with a big idea and then drift between smaller ideas in a way that the person sees as relating the ideas around the big, core idea that they are proposing.
Metaphors and similes - Ni can be difficult to verbalize, and this kind of language is used to say "here, I can't say it, but here's a picture for you to decode to see what I mean"
For Ni doms, facts, data, ethics, morals, principles are all J-oriented and tend to be used for the main purpose of leveraging the ideas the Ni person is trying to propose. The idea or concept takes priority in why the person is communicating

There are more for sure - but if you don't catch yourself wanting to take information around you in and fit it against an intangible conception you've developed at some point, you do not prefer Ni to Ne, or any other P function.


----------



## The Madman (Feb 20, 2013)

chwoey said:


> In real life people often tell me that I seem to be a very deep person. In high school I was considered an exceptionally creative, introspective thinker. I often had people tell me that they were intimidated by me, thinking that I would consider them superficial.
> 
> Yet now, I am consistently told (on this forum) that my posts lack a particular depth that one would see from Ni-users. It makes me curious (as I have yet to see this difference) as to what Ni-depth actually looks like.
> 
> How would one pin point when someone has strong Ni? Any quotes would be especially helpful.


Most of the descriptions which people gave you seem to not refer to functions. They rather refer simply to insight, intelligence, and creativity. Although the 'introspective and deep' parts may refer to Fi.

I agree with @LiquidLight, in that people's opinions of 'depth' are subjective, and have little relevance to whether you are Ni-dominant or not. However, if you want an extreme example of stereotypical Ni depth, here is mine:
That picture on your signature with the cars represents people's ideals and their journeys. At first, they have such clear and concise aims, and they charge in, with (relatively) clear lights. They think they know what they are getting into. However, after spending time in it, everything turns all blurry. They leave, not knowing why they entered in the first place, forgetting their aims. Not knowing where they are going, they leave, into the cold, dark desert, doomed to starve and die. Also, the picture shows that the world is dark and valueless, and the only values created are those by the hands of humanity. God is dead. It is up to us to determine where we go.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

According to the dictionary:

*ni-deep
*_
adj
_*
1.* so deep as to reach or cover the ni
*2.* _(postpositive; often foll by in)_*a.* sunk or covered to the ni _ni-deep in sand_
*b.* immersed; deeply involved


----------



## chwoey (Mar 29, 2012)

The Madman said:


> However, if you want an extreme example of stereotypical Ni depth, here is mine:
> That picture on your signature with the cars represents people's ideals and their journeys. At first, they have such clear and concise aims, and they charge in, with (relatively) clear lights. They think they know what they are getting into. However, after spending time in it, everything turns all blurry. They leave, not knowing why they entered in the first place, forgetting their aims. Not knowing where they are going, they leave, into the cold, dark desert, doomed to starve and die. Also, the picture shows that the world is dark and valueless, and the only values created are those by the hands of humanity. God is dead. It is up to us to determine where we go.


Do you find you look at nearly everything in such abstract, non-direct ways? 
I understand you say this is a extreme example, so how would you say you look at things on average? 
Is it a mixture of looking at the realities of things and then applying an idea of the implications of what you see, or do you immediately see the implications and then build up the reality afterwards. I apologize if the question is convoluted/confusing.. I'm having a hard time getting my words right.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

I'm so deep that when I walk I fall into myself.



chwoey said:


> Yet now, I am consistently told (on this forum) that my posts lack a particular depth that one would see from Ni-users.


Your posts demonstrate your lack of eyebrows too. Thus sayeth the forum.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Figure said:


> I absolutely hate the word "depth" as it refers to Ni. Ni and "depth" are not the same thing. If you prefer Ni, you probably have no clue that your mode is even conceivably "deep" unless you have an inflated sense of self and disoriented image of what the function is really about (which is a different dime and dance floor).


I think Pi is by default "deep" - by deep we talk about _conceptual _depth. Compare to Se that says, a chair is a chair. Now compare to Ni that says, "The chair is an item with a purpose and that purpose is so people can sit on it" or compare to Ne that says, "You can sit on a chair" to Si that says, "This chair has a particular meaning to me." 

Introversion by itself tends to lend "depth". This does however of course not mean, that an introvert is going to be "deep" as in spiritually deep, philsophically deep or analytically deep.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The Madman said:


> That picture on your signature with the cars represents people's ideals and their journeys. At first, they have such clear and concise aims, and they charge in, with (relatively) clear lights. They think they know what they are getting into. However, after spending time in it, everything turns all blurry. They leave, not knowing why they entered in the first place, forgetting their aims. Not knowing where they are going, they leave, into the cold, dark desert, doomed to starve and die. Also, the picture shows that the world is dark and valueless, and the only values created are those by the hands of humanity. God is dead. It is up to us to determine where we go.


On what reason do you base it as an extreme example?




chwoey said:


> Do you find you look at nearly everything in such abstract, non-direct ways?





chwoey said:


> I understand you say this is a extreme example, so how would you say you look at things on average?
> Is it a mixture of looking at the realities of things and then applying an idea of the implications of what you see, or do you immediately see the implications and then build up the reality afterwards. I apologize if the question is convoluted/confusing.. I'm having a hard time getting my words right.




Yes, usually, but usually not vocalized as clearly as in the example in the above. The impressions are stored unconsciusly. But I can also fall back on sensation because I go cba so it just becomes a gif image with cars in it.


----------



## The Madman (Feb 20, 2013)

chwoey said:


> Do you find you look at nearly everything in such abstract, non-direct ways?
> I understand you say this is a extreme example, so how would you say you look at things on average?
> Is it a mixture of looking at the realities of things and then applying an idea of the implications of what you see, or do you immediately see the implications and then build up the reality afterwards. I apologize if the question is convoluted/confusing.. I'm having a hard time getting my words right.


No apologies, I usually have a hard time getting my words right. Like now.

This is the stages of (my) Ni usage:
1) I perceive something with my senses, as does everyone other than those who lack the senses (ex. blind, deaf, etc.)
2) My mind connects an abstract theory in my head to the something.
3) My mind ignores all that does not work with the abstract theory (screw you, Te or Ti) and builds up a new reality for the something. For example, in the picture, there were cars on both sides going in and out, but I ignored that and only had cars going either in or out, because it worked better for my abstract theory.

Of course, if there is too much that does not work with the abstract theory, then the abstract theory must be removed from the something and a new abstract theory must be worked out.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I think Pi is by default "deep" - by deep we talk about _conceptual _depth. Compare to Se that says, a chair is a chair. Now compare to Ni that says, "The chair is an item with a purpose and that purpose is so people can sit on it" or compare to Ne that says, "You can sit on a chair" to Si that says, "This chair has a particular meaning to me."
> 
> Introversion by itself tends to lend "depth". This does however of course not mean, that an introvert is going to be "deep" as in spiritually deep, philsophically deep or analytically deep.


The first part is weird. I'm not sure if I agree with it or not. It's probably a linguistic thing - it's not "deeper," it's "one's own." Are you trying to say that "one's own" creates depth? 

But the last part is what the OP is asking about. She's basically saying "I was considered to be a 'deep' person, but people here say my writing isn't 'deep' like Ni, so I may not prefer the function." And you don't have to be a philosophically deep person, as mentioned, to prefer Ni.


----------



## The Madman (Feb 20, 2013)

LeaT said:


> On what reason do you base it as an extreme example?


For the reason that it was expressed to the concrete world and not stored in my head. Usually I would not do that. Or I would express it in a poem under the guise of symbolism.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

The Madman said:


> No apologies, I usually have a hard time getting my words right. Like now.
> 
> This is the stages of (my) Ni usage:
> 1) I perceive something with my senses, as does everyone other than those who lack the senses (ex. blind, deaf, etc.)
> ...


#3 sounds like Ti - fitting to a model or framework. Also, thinking develops meaning, not intuition.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

chwoey said:


> In real life people often tell me that I seem to be a very deep person. In high school I was considered an exceptionally creative, introspective thinker. I often had people tell me that they were intimidated by me, thinking that I would consider them superficial.


Thats not how Ni-doms are perceived :crazy:



> Yet now, I am consistently told (on this forum) that my posts lack a particular depth that one would see from Ni-users. It makes me curious (as I have yet to see this difference) as to what Ni-depth actually looks like.


Right your posts are pretty Ne-ish.



> How would one pin point when someone has strong Ni? Any quotes would be especially helpful.


Carl Jung himself is a Ni-dom.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

Ni of itself isn't deep, though some Ni people are deep.

I know plenty of deep sensors too.

Ni poetry is cool though. http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/56401-down-rabbit-hole-introverted-intuiting.html


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Zero11 said:


> Carl Jung himself is a Ni-dom.


Ti dom. Psychological Types itself is a very Ti-esque analytical examination of typology.

EDIT: I'm not going to debate Jung's type any further in this thread because that is not what the topic is about. If you would all like to discuss it further, I recommend posting in this thread about Carl Jung:

http://personalitycafe.com/guess-type/13952-carl-jung.html


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Ti dom. Psychological Types itself is a very Ti-esque analytical examination of typology.


It's funny you should say that. I find it very Ni-esque, more so than Ti.

Are we both projecting?


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

The Madman said:


> Most of the descriptions which people gave you seem to not refer to functions. They rather refer simply to insight, intelligence, and creativity. Although the 'introspective and deep' parts may refer to Fi.
> 
> I agree with @_LiquidLight_, in that people's opinions of 'depth' are subjective, and have little relevance to whether you are Ni-dominant or not. However, if you want an extreme example of stereotypical Ni depth, here is mine:
> That picture on your signature with the cars represents people's ideals and their journeys. At first, they have such clear and concise aims, and they charge in, with (relatively) clear lights. They think they know what they are getting into. However, after spending time in it, everything turns all blurry. They leave, not knowing why they entered in the first place, forgetting their aims. Not knowing where they are going, *they leave, into the cold, dark desert, doomed to starve and die.* Also, the picture shows that the world is dark and valueless, and the only values created are those by the hands of humanity. God is dead. It is up to us to determine where we go.


It's pretty dark, and I remember reading similar dark stuff described by Ni-dom. Is it typical for Ni-dom? Why is it always so dark? How do you know that they are going to starve?
I think it's blurry because the camera is out of focus... it's beautiful in a way, too. It feels a little bit busy but laid-back at the same time, sort of romantic and a bit sad as well. Oh, it starts getting annoying to my eyes staring at the moving cars now.


----------



## ounkeo (May 23, 2013)

"depth" is so subjective. If a genius were to read my posts, he'd think I was shallow; possibly even question if I have any intellect at all.

To someone else, it may be seen as "deep".

Also, not every person communicates the same way. Some introverts I know are just as stunted (communications wise) online as they are IRL. It doesn't necessarily point to them being "not deep" in the sense that they aren't thinking of things.

Also, as said in my first sentence, there will be "levels" or hierarchies among the Ni population. Some will have it more than others.

If you combine that with possibility of stunted communications, it's easy to see how someone may not even come across as Ni.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

"Deep" is entirely subjective and quite frankly meaningless as a descriptive term. If it cannot somehow be measured by an objective scale, then what is "deep" is not a good predictor for any function use. 

I consider the following quote from "V for Vendetta" to be quite deep "Behind this mask there is more than Flesh Mr. Creedy, behind this mask there is an idea and ideas are bulletproof". Some people may consider that to be cinematic cliché, or the equivalent to a "Die Hard" style "Yippiekayyee motherfucker" but for me it has wide ranging implications, and gargantuan applications. 

On the other hand, some people would consider a variation upon "If you have never known sadness, then how would you know joy" as deep, I consider it a platitude, and for some a tautology. 

I'm not the best guy to give you "Ni-101" but if we extrapolate from my dominant function, Te, Ni is a tool, it's not depth, or width, it's a tool for gathering information that by a competent user can be controlled and directed with a degree of competence that facilitates either depth or width. 

Burrowing through an idea, a set of data, or a concept, stripping away the surface layers to reach increasing depth to arrive at the core would qualify as depth in my opinion, applying that core to a wide range of fields where it was not intended to apply would be width. Looking for the unstated and implicit meanings behind the actions of a corporation in attempting to guard against risk would be depth, taking the newly arrived at meanings and applying them to your love life and the preparation of Sunday dinner would be width. 

An introverted perception function, evaluated through the perception and processing functions of a 2nd or 3rd party, sounds like the cognitive function version of hear-say to me.


----------

