# Ti vs Ni



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Hi guys. Lately I've been a bit confused about my type (INTP/INFJ). And I was wondering if this could be because I'm having trouble seeing the difference between Ni and Ti. To me, they both seem like a subjective "complete the pattern" function. But I think Ti is much more concerned with reaching a conclusion whereas Ni is more about "seeing" as much as possible. I don't know, it's hard to put into words. Anyway, can you guys explain their major differences?:mellow:


----------



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

Well Ti isn't really comparable to Ni as they are different kinds of functions. T and F are the decision makers while S and N are about information gathering so in theory an INFJ uses Fe to decide something considering what's best for the group while an INTP uses Ti, deciding subjectively from their mind. The confusion can be increased when an INFJ uses tertiary Ti in place of secondary Fe to make the decision, and this is supposedly more common in males where Fe is seen as "unmanly" by society.

I suggest you try and work out whether you use Ne or Ni (easier said than done, for me at least) to decide whether you're NFJ or NTP and if you decide NTP don't discount being an E - they are very introverted for extroverts and many of them have similar struggles being sociable.

Good luck :happy:


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

Ni gives me "aha!" moments, intuitive realizations, but doesn't explain how something works. I've read that it is associated with blind belief, believing something is just true without understand how it can be true or how it works, with reaching conclusion without knowing the steps the followed there and I can say this sounds very much true.

Ti to the contrary is very busy figuring how things work. So in my case because I have both my Ti wants to deconstruct these intuitive vibes, pull them apart into pieces, label these pieces and inspect how they relate to each other - it wants to understand how an intuitive vibe generated by Ni works, why is it so, how did Ni reach such-and-such conclusion. I think for INTP his or her Ti will be doing same to Ne-generated ideas and intuitive hunches but achieving much greater inner clarity than tertiary Ti of INFJs or auxiliary Ti of ENTPs. Ni to the contrary doesn't feel clear at all. I also noticed that Ti users may feel a need to make up their mind about something, to form and hold an opinion on things, but Ni just wants to encompass everything, all possibilities, and doesn't care to prioritize some things over others.

Way to distinguish Ne from Ni is that Ni inspects things that have already happened in past, seeing trends and patterns of the past, and then it flips these patterns and trends into the future. So it looks like a future oriented function but in reality it is very much past oriented, but just mirrors past into future. I also think Ni as if subtracts meaning from environment. It is very good at spotting things it deems meaningless. Ne is more about working with what you have in present to model something conceptually new out of it. Ne to the contrary of Ni seems to just pick up things in environment and create meaning for them rather than subtracting meaning. So then if you know which propensities you have in your thinking then you can figure out whether you use Ni or Ne.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Thanks for your responses. You guys were quite helpful. And, after doing some research, I've re-re-re-re-confirmed my INTPishness. roud:


----------



## suicidal_orange (May 6, 2010)

vel said:


> I think for INTP his or her Ti will be doing same to Ne-generated ideas and intuitive hunches but achieving much greater inner clarity than tertiary Ti of INFJs or auxiliary Ti of ENTPs. ... I also noticed that Ti users may feel a need to make up their mind about something, to form and hold an opinion on things, but Ni just wants to encompass everything, all possibilities, and doesn't care to prioritize some things over others.


Thanks for that vel - you just put the last nail in my "I" :crazy:


----------



## tooboku (Jun 9, 2010)

Most INTJs and INFJs are pretty sure of their type from the beginning.

Te and Fe are I suppose a little more decisive by nature.

As stated above Ti and Ni are two very different things.

Ni is like a calculator in that you punch in your variables and the answer comes back pretty quickly.

Ti is like a microscope. It tries to see things up close and gets into the tiny details.

So in short, one tries to predict cause and effect while the other examines it.


----------



## cavarice (Jan 30, 2010)

vel said:


> Ni gives me "aha!" moments, intuitive realizations, but doesn't explain how something works. I've read that it is associated with blind belief, believing something is just true without understand how it can be true or how it works, with reaching conclusion without knowing the steps the followed there and I can say this sounds very much true.
> 
> Ti to the contrary is very busy figuring how things work. So in my case because I have both *my Ti wants to deconstruct these intuitive vibes, pull them apart into pieces, label these pieces and inspect how they relate to each other - it wants to understand how an intuitive vibe generated by Ni works, why is it so, how did Ni reach such-and-such conclusion*. I think for INTP his or her Ti will be doing same to Ne-generated ideas and intuitive hunches but achieving much greater inner clarity than tertiary Ti of INFJs or auxiliary Ti of ENTPs. Ni to the contrary doesn't feel clear at all. I also noticed that Ti users may feel a need to make up their mind about something, to form and hold an opinion on things, but *Ni just wants to encompass everything, all possibilities, and doesn't care to prioritize some things over others.*
> 
> Way to distinguish Ne from Ni is that Ni inspects things that have already happened in past, seeing trends and patterns of the past, and then it flips these patterns and trends into the future. So it looks like a future oriented function but in reality it is very much past oriented, but just mirrors past into future. I also think Ni as if subtracts meaning from environment. *It is very good at spotting things it deems meaningless.* Ne is more about working with what you have in present to model something conceptually new out of it. Ne to the contrary of Ni seems to just pick up things in environment and create meaning for them rather than subtracting meaning. So then if you know which propensities you have in your thinking then you can figure out whether you use Ni or Ne.


I am also currently wondering whether I am an INTP or INFJ, and the bolded points resonate very well with me.

What you describe about how your use of Ti and Ni intermingle sounds very, very much something I commonly do. I tend to come up with conclusions much much faster than I can coherently articulate them, but I've never felt comfortable about giving weight to intuitive "hunches" in and of themselves. Most of my understandings have been constructed by way of looking backwards at what previously happened and attempt to see how it all fits together, rather than a forward-moving constructive process from working with what is at hand. I've long rejected the idea being an Ni- "user" based on most descriptions of it I've read, but am realizing (like many people) that my understanding of Ne and Ni is very wonky.

I may be misinterpeting (again) here, but I am also the type who certainly doen't need to make up my mind on something (though I had previously associated this with Ne). I don't have to have clearly defined viewpoint XY or fit category ABC, because to do that would seem to ignore the fact that there is an entire cosmos out there of information that I don't have, and that nobody has, and that what little information that does exist tends to be further diluted by the biases and practical limitations of those finding and dissemninating it. 

(Indeed, it's one of the reasons why I reject rigid systems of labeling and categorization. They seem arbitrary, limited by the information that was "gatherable" at that time. I could hold l viewpoint XYZ based on all of what I currently know NOW, but that doesn't mean I won't find something else tomorrow that will challenge what I previously thought was correct. I am less inclined to do such things, knowing in the past that I thought one thing was right based on what was available at the time, then seeing a pattern of that "definite" view changing with availability of information led me to distrust doing such a thing... )


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

cavarice said:


> I am also currently wondering whether I am an INTP or INFJ, and the bolded points resonate very well with me.
> 
> What you describe about how your use of Ti and Ni intermingle sounds very, very much something I commonly do. I tend to come up with conclusions much much faster than I can coherently articulate them, but I've never felt comfortable about giving weight to intuitive "hunches" in and of themselves. Most of my understandings have been constructed by way of looking backwards at what previously happened and attempt to see how it all fits together, rather than a forward-moving constructive process from working with what is at hand. I've long rejected the idea being an Ni- "user" based on most descriptions of it I've read, but am realizing (like many people) that my understanding of Ne and Ni is very wonky.
> 
> ...



I actually relate a lot to your description. I find Dom-Ti actually rather too precise about thought for me. Ni is organised/meaningful chaos, Ti seems organised order, more of a fan of the rigid (perfect!) systems. They also seem to want a more organised mind then me, when I want a more organised outside world - though not perfectly, being N. And I've never felt myself all that future-oriented - more that time was not a relevant reference point. Info all comes from past, though. I don't trust hunches alone either, but I don't so much experience them as hunches or gut feelings, not the way INFJs describe it. It's just...ideas, patterns. Don't know all the details that go into them, but not knowing that doesn't necessarily feel like a hunch.

I find I do want to make up my mind on things - but it is never that strict a decision. It is more like a foothold, a stopping place for my thought that I can then reevealuate later. It's more that I cannot leave it up in the air, not that I necessarily believe a conclusion - so yes, like you, I hold a viewpoint based on what I currently know, but don't hold it as truth. Without that viewpoint I remember nothing. Ps tend to be a bit mroe anal about defining beliefs and ideas than Js - Js tend to be more anal about the outside world.

So Ni sounds like a possibility. fwiw


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

asmit127 said:


> I suggest you try and work out whether you use Ne or Ni (easier said than done, for me at least) to decide whether you're NFJ or NTP and if you decide NTP don't discount being an E - they are very introverted for extroverts and many of them have similar struggles being sociable.


I simply don't buy the idea that ENTPs are "introverted extraverts". There's simply no reason for them to be any more introverted than any other extravert. My (anecdotal) experience is that ENTPs generally have a tendency to make new friends quickly and tire of the old ones quickly as well. I think people confuse their lack of desire to have many long-term connections with introversion.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

amnorvend said:


> I simply don't buy the idea that ENTPs are "introverted extraverts". There's simply no reason for them to be any more introverted than any other extravert. My (anecdotal) experience is that ENTPs generally have a tendency to make new friends quickly and tire of the old ones quickly as well. I think people confuse their lack of desire to have many long-term connections with introversion.


I've met several ENTPs who claimed this. Also ENFPs. Mostly they just disliked people, or got worn out by negative interactions with them and thought it was the same thing as introversion. Which it isn't. And even their 'introverted' activities like blogging would not only have an audience, usually, but be directed at an audience - even an audience of potential scholars down the line, or whatever. They always needed almost the concept of someone there, watching, connecting, an outward focus - but would sometimes prefer an imaginary one to real people. This does not remotely strike me as introverted, being an actual introvert, but may perhaps seem so to extraverts.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

cavarice said:


> I am also currently wondering whether I am an INTP or INFJ, and the bolded points resonate very well with me.
> 
> What you describe about how your use of Ti and Ni intermingle sounds very, very much something I commonly do. I tend to come up with conclusions much much faster than I can coherently articulate them, but I've never felt comfortable about giving weight to intuitive "hunches" in and of themselves. Most of my understandings have been constructed by way of looking backwards at what previously happened and attempt to see how it all fits together, rather than a forward-moving constructive process from working with what is at hand. I've long rejected the idea being an Ni- "user" based on most descriptions of it I've read, but am realizing (like many people) that my understanding of Ne and Ni is very wonky.
> 
> ...


Yeah this is definitely Ti + Ne. I find that I've been wrong on virtually everything I've ever believed, and my current rigid systems are probably gonna go in the same direction. But I don't think there's anything wrong with having rigid systems and precise categories as long as you remember to actively go about disproving them so that you can build better ones in their place.


----------



## Unicorntopia (Jun 18, 2010)

Psychosmurf said:


> Yeah this is definitely Ti + Ne. I find that I've been wrong on virtually everything I've ever believed, and my current rigid systems are probably gonna go in the same direction. But I don't think there's anything wrong with having rigid systems and precise categories as long as you remember to actively go about disproving them so that you can build better ones in their place.


If that was Ti Ne than I must be an INTP because the way he describe that was spot on for me.


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Possibly the easiest thing to do is try differentiating Ni from Ne. In general, extraverted perception (Ne) will observe a situation and move the person to take part in the situation or use the situation to move closer to other people. Introverted perception will move a person to differentiate themselves from the situation or other people.

Lenore Thomson gives a pretty good example. I'll paraphrase (and include S functions as well just for comparison):

Let's say we are going to the beach. Here's how the 4 different perceiving functions would handle the situation:


Se would enjoy the sun, the sand, and would play in the water.
Si would bring along a favorite book and a watch to make sure you get home on time.
Ne would try to fit the current context into the larger context. You might notice that someone is playing music we really like. Hey, that reminds you... maybe you should go to a bar after this. You're sure there are plenty around. Let's go find someone to ask!
Someone using Ni might wonder why people make so much effort to get tans. Before the Industrial Revolution, tans signified someone was lower class. But afterwards, lower class people worked in factories and pale skin came to mean that you were lower class. Neither of those are relevant today, so why do people like tanning? You dare not discuss this with your friends because they'd just think you're weird.

If I were to add Ti to the list (even though it isn't a Perceiving function), it might be something like this:


So if the beach closes at 7 PM, what time does the beach officially become closed? We know that at 6:59 PM the beach is open and that at 7:01 PM the beach is closed. But what about 7:00 PM itself? Is that considered open time or closed time? It's probably that the beach is open at 7:00:00 PM and closed at 7:00:01 PM. If you think about it, "closing" isn't really an action that takes time. It's an arbitrary point in time. In fact, you could probably break it down into milli or nanoseconds if you wanted to. Just like with Ni, you don't discuss this with your friends because they'll think you're weird. That should go without saying.

So if I were to summarize the difference, I'd say that Ni tends to detach itself while observing and Ti tends to detach itself while analyzing.


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

@vel

I was agreeing with you in everything you said until up to this point:



> Way to distinguish Ne from Ni is that Ni inspects things that have already happened in past, seeing trends and patterns of the past, and then it flips these patterns and trends into the future. So it looks like a future oriented function but in reality it is very much past oriented, but just mirrors past into future.


What do you mean that Ni inspects things from the past and then flips it into the future? I'll be honest, I'm usually oblivious to any past trends or patterns which seems more of the realm of Si rather than Ni. 

Could you elaborate this detail further?

Thanks


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> @vel
> 
> I was agreeing with you in everything you said until up to this point:
> 
> ...


From what I've seen, Ni does the same thing while being much less concrete about it. It tends to think in terms of grand, established institutions like religion or education or government rather than specific sensations.

I have an INTJ friend who spent maybe 30 minutes explaining how school's purpose is indoctrinate people and socialize them. I've heard this many, many times from ITPs with the implication being "this needs to change!" But with this INTJ, it was different. It was almost like he was sharing some new discovery he had just made rather than being a call to action. It's like how I might say "Did you know that 98% of the earth's water is salt water? Isn't that crazy?!" Whereas he was saying "Did you know that school is an institution designed to indoctrinate and socialize people? Isn't that crazy?!"


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

amnorvend said:


> From what I've seen, Ni does the same thing while being much less concrete about it. It tends to think in terms of grand, established institutions like religion or education or government rather than specific sensations.
> 
> I have an INTJ friend who spent maybe 30 minutes explaining how school's purpose is indoctrinate people and socialize them. I've heard this many, many times from ITPs with the implication being "this needs to change!" But with this INTJ, it was different. It was almost like he was sharing some new discovery he had just made rather than being a call to action. It's like how I might say "Did you know that 98% of the earth's water is salt water? Isn't that crazy?!" Whereas he was saying "Did you know that school is an institution designed to indoctrinate and socialize people? Isn't that crazy?!"


I'm still not seeing how Ni is past-oriented. In my experience my intuition just pops out of nowhere with no link to the past or the future. It's an instant realization of the underlying meanings of the unobserved or the untold. It's like you say "I'm happy" and I hear that as "I'm miserable". My mind begins creating various perspectives of what's readily apparent in the surface. It's a transcendence of perception sort to speak. But I still don't rely on any past reference of where I got my information, it just...happens lol


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> It's like you say "I'm happy" and I hear that as "I'm miserable".


Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is beginning to sound more like Ne than Ni...


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

amnorvend said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is beginning to sound more like Ne than Ni...


You're not wrong, that statement could also apply to Ne or even Se as well. It just depends on how you're getting your information. Ne would look at the context of the situation and get clues from the external environment to conclude that the person is not really "happy" but "miserable.

For the sake of the argument, lets assume that the person who said "I'm happy" looks happy and nothing in the immediate context implies otherwise. In this situation to say that the person is feeling "miserable" when he just said that he is happy would be a bit of a leap of logic. Ni is all about leaps of logic since it's getting its information from some unconscious region of the brain where its user has no idea of where that realization came from, but yet, that feeling is there that he is not really happy.

How did he come to that realization? Who knows. That's when you need a judging function to figure out the rest.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> I'm still not seeing how Ni is past-oriented. In my experience my intuition just pops out of nowhere with no link to the past or the future.


It doesn't pop up out of nowhere. It uses all the information you have observed in the past to come up with the conclusion i.e. it references memory of the past.



Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> It's an instant realization of the underlying meanings of the unobserved or the untold. It's like you say "I'm happy" and I hear that as "I'm miserable". My mind begins creating various perspectives of what's readily apparent in the surface. It's a transcendence of perception sort to speak. But I still don't rely on any past reference of where I got my information, it just...happens lol


You're describing an instance of a new event here. So in this case saying "I'm happy" is a new event you have not encountered before. So it flips perspectives to allow to maximum amount of connections from this event to several others. Hypothetical scenario: at the same time that I said this, you might see me flipping a pencil in my hand as I am telling you this, and you notice that I am wearing a scarf which you know isn't typical for me. Then the next time same scenario happens you will "just know" that I am unhappy without me telling you this if you notice same 'set' of events - pencil + skarf - and it will click in your mind that something is wrong. To be able to relate a maximum amount of such seemingly unrelated things your mind cannot make a internal judgement on which perspective is best, but instead it needs to perceive the whole picture where everything is taken to be interconnected with everything else and all perspectives are possible.

You might also find yourself spending a good deal of time ruminating over the things that have happened, going about them in your head as you are daydreaming. The key here being "have happened" so it is things from past. From my interaction with Ne and Se dominant personalities I see that they actually don't engage in such prolonged ruminations of what has occurred and what they have observed. To the contrary most of their mind's time and energy is turned to the present moment and possibilities of the present moment - what can be created out of it or what course of action can be taken. In this sense I feel that they are always trying to live as if ahead of themselves.

As far as what Ni has to do with the past I have come to see it as basically something that has heavy influence on what sort of memories you will store, as it is a perceiving introverted function. It acts like a filter to what you will retain and remember after observing new events happen or may be even occasionaly participating in them (Se). Then when you see something similar occur your mind will put forward that memory that really consists of a very extensive spiderweb of connections. So you observe one thing and then the connection is made to something you remember from past, you remember how it was and that's when the "aha" moment hits. And that is how you "just know" what is going to happen, because you have actually observed something similar in past and your mind instantly drew the connections to those memories. It gets more complicated than that actually - it also synthesizes several of these memories together such that it may actually reference several different past scenarios and pull piece from those.

That's at least how I sense it working in myself. I had a sense that perceiving functions are somehow related to our perception of time and then I realized that Ni function working inside my head is actually feeding into what sort of memories I store. Then I realized that Ni is actually tied to my perception of the past.


----------



## freeeekyyy (Feb 16, 2010)

Ni does use the past to make predictions. If it didn't, it would have horrible accuracy. It actually seems not all that different from what I understand Si to be, maybe a bit more generalized. I think a lot of misunderstanding of introverted intuition comes from comparing too closely to extraverted intuition. Both introverted perceiving functions are more like each other, and the same goes for the extraverted perceiving functions. I think that's mostly true for the judging functions as well, but that's another topic.

As far as Ti goes, I don't really know, I'm all Te. Whatever I know of Ti is mostly from research and not my own usage.


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

vel said:


> Text.


Would you say that all perceiving functions are interdependent on each other then? You need Se in order to have Si; you need Si in order to have Ni and Ne needs Se.

I'm having the experience of typing this post(Se), I need to recall this experience in order respond to what you're going to write next(Si). I need to interpret your response to get a better understanding of this discussion(Ne) and finally there comes a different perspective of the whole discussion, an insight of the whole(Ni)

Did I misinterpret what you said vel?:crazy:


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> ...since it's getting its information from some unconscious region of the brain...


Ah, here it is. This _is_ Ne. In particular, using your intuitions to learn more about another person and connect with them as you're describing is very extraverted. I would imagine Ni would do something more along the lines of saying "She says she's happy and she's smiling. I wonder if I smile like that when I'm happy."

In your case though, it's _shadow_ Ne. Shadow functions come from your unconscious. They have a tendency to be negative or disagreeable, which would explain why you have the urge to see someone as being miserable when all outward appearances suggest otherwise.

This isn't uncommon at all. In fact, you probably switch back and forth between primary Ni and shadow primary Ne much more often than you think. Since it's unconscious, you just don't usually realize it at the time.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

freeeekyyy said:


> Ni does use the past to make predictions. If it didn't, it would have horrible accuracy. It actually seems not all that different from what I understand Si to be, maybe a bit more generalized. I think a lot of misunderstanding of introverted intuition comes from comparing too closely to extraverted intuition. Both introverted perceiving functions are more like each other, and the same goes for the extraverted perceiving functions. I think that's mostly true for the judging functions as well, but that's another topic.


Yes Si and Ni are very similar to each other but they value completely opposite things. There were pictures on this posted on another forum - I'll repost them here:


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> Would you say that all perceiving functions are interdependent on each other then? You need Se in order to have Si; you need Si in order to have Ni and Ne needs Se.
> 
> I'm having the experience of typing this post(Se), I need to recall this experience in order respond to what you're going to write next(Si). I need to interpret your response to get a better understanding of this discussion(Ne) and finally there comes a different perspective of the whole discussion, an insight of the whole(Ni)
> 
> Did I misinterpret what you said vel?:crazy:


You have all functions really, just that some are heavily supressed in favor of others. And yes they are all working together, so saying I used Ni here or Fe there is not entirely correct as you cannot use Ni or Fe in their pure form. It is all intertwined and working together.

As amnorvend is saying using the suppressed functions typically produces a feeling of malaise but they can be used. This is not explained in MBTI but is discussed in socionics. It is said that people have decent use of inverse of dominant and auxiliary - they do sort of create by products in our thinking. Check description for Ignored Function and Demonstrative Function here http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Functions#Id - for INFJs the ignored function is Ne and demonstrative is Fi. These two are suppressed in favor of Ni (called base function for INFJs) and Fe (call creative function for INFJs).

Ni and Si actually would greatly annoy each other if the mind would try to use them simultaneously, because if you take a look at pictures I posted above you'll see that they contradict each other really.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

^Oooooohhhh... The diagram was really clear, vel. roud:


----------



## Unicorntopia (Jun 18, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> Would you say that all perceiving functions are interdependent on each other then? You need Se in order to have Si; you need Si in order to have Ni and Ne needs Se.


Yes, definitely!



Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> I'm having the experience of typing this post(Se), I need to recall this experience in order respond to what you're going to write next(Si).


Yes, but only loosely because everyone has memory and everyone is experiencing what they are doing. It is only where the main focus lies/what the user prefers/what is easiest for them/what comes naturally/what they would choose had they not at some point in their life been put through some sort of stress that forced them to see through N eyes in order to get what they want accomplished. 



Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> I need to interpret your response to get a better understanding of this discussion(Ne)


 I would say that this is Ni. Ni in my understanding is tied closely to perception, meaning, and understanding. 


Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> and finally there comes a different perspective of the whole discussion, an insight of the whole(Ni)


 This could be Ni or Ne. You could have come to this by thinking of the possibility of another perspective (Ne), or you could have come to this perspective by a “just know” and know that it is correct. Ni can also switch from perspective to perspective by changing variables with help from Ne. The Ni user finds the* most likely perspectives* based on Fe/Ti judgment (Fe: people focused or organizing the feelings, values or reactions of others, Ti: logical connections of S or N info within the mind) or Te/Fi judgment (Te: logistics focused or organizing items in the exterior world objectively and logically, Fi: picking which S or N info in the mind is more valuable to yourself based on your feelings past or present) and a touch of Se, where the Ne user finds* a perspective that can be* supported by the judgment functions and a touch of Si.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

Ti is basically conscious deduction to form an understanding from the perceived information. trying to figure out the essence of things, to form a greater understanding. Processing information that the person gathers from Pe.

Ni on the other hand is internal perception that tries to form the big picture unconsciously from known facts of the external world. Gathering information from Je.


----------



## Unicorntopia (Jun 18, 2010)

Naama said:


> Ni on the other hand is internal perception that tries to form the big picture unconsciously from known facts of the external world. Gathering information from Je.


Here you say Ni is unconscious. What about types who have conscious Ni?


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

Unicorntopia said:


> Here you say Ni is unconscious. What about types who have conscious Ni?


According to this page, Ni is an unconscious process:



> I.Introverted Intuition
> “Introverted Intuition is directed to the inner object, a term that might justly be applied to the contents of the unconscious. The relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, though their reality is not physical, but mental. They appear to intuitive perception as subjective images of things which, though not to be met with in the outside world, constitute the contents of the unconscious, and of the collective unconscious in particular.”
> 
> 
> Introverted Intuition is an irrational function by the previously established definition. It does not rely on conscious scrutiny for assessment, but to something most closely in tune to the colloquial notion of 'hunches'. Since such Intuitive force is intuitively aimed, unlike the Extroverted Intuition, it requires very little external stimulus. We also know that Intuition is an information collecting faculty--as it is a perceiving function. Here we are struck by a paradox that Intuition is primarily concerned with collection of information, yet at the same time seems to rely little on the external stimulus. This leads us to question whether such an information collecting faculty truly does suffice to adequately collect information. Does it fall to the same malady Jung has evinced in Introverted Sensing?


Source


----------



## Unicorntopia (Jun 18, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> According to this page, Ni is an unconscious process:
> 
> 
> 
> Source


If Ni is an unconscious process, than how is it one of our conscious processes as INFJs? 

8 functions. Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Se, Si, Fe, Fi. 4 are conscious and the other 4 are unconscious... Hello!


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

Unicorntopia said:


> If Ni is an unconscious process, than how is it one of our conscious processes as INFJs?
> 
> 8 functions. Ne, Ni, Te, Ti, Se, Si, Fe, Fi. 4 are conscious and the other 4 are unconscious... Hello!


Do you know why Jung called the perceiving function "irrational", while the judging function "rational"? If you did, you would know that an irrational function(Ni,Ne,Si,Se) is unconscious per se:



Jung said:


> The "irrational" function, according to Jung, is typical for mental and perceptual activity that predominantly (and, for the most part, unconsciously) operates with opportunities, i.e. various possible outcomes and sensations result from premises and sensations, mostly driven by unconscious processes. People with predominantly "irrational" thinking see the world as a structure that can take various forms and outcomes.


The rational function(Te,Fe,Ti,Fi) is conscious because we are aware of its usage:



Jung said:


> The "rational" function, according to Jung, is typical for mental activity that results in thinking, feelings, response and behavior that consciously operates in line with some rules, principles or norms. People with predominantly "rational" function perceive the world as an ordered structure that follows a set of rules.


Hello!


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

That quote is originally from Aleksey Bashtavenko's "Principles of Typology" (Principles of Typology - Google Books) which hasn't really received that good reviews. The first paragraph quoted here is however directly from Jung's "Psychological Types", so that shouldn't be to readily dismissed. That said, I do think that understanding Ni as an unconscious process is a misunderstanding of the fact that Ni as a function operates closer to the unconscious than many other functions.


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

penchant said:


> That quote is originally from Aleksey Bashtavenko's "Principles of Typology" (Principles of Typology - Google Books) which hasn't really received that good reviews. The first paragraph quoted here is however directly from Jung's "Psychological Types", so that shouldn't be to readily dismissed. That said, I do think that understanding Ni as an unconscious process is a misunderstanding of the fact that Ni as a function operates closer to the unconscious than many other functions.



The term "unconscious" seems to be having a negative connotation in this discussion, so let me try putting in my own words what unconscious means in the given typological definition.

When we're talking about the shadow functions, they are said to be unconscious because we are not readily aware of using them but they make up a vital component to our behavior operating from an inferior dichotomous paradigm. Ni is dichotomous to Si since you can't both be introverted intuiting and introverted sensing at the same time. I think this is what Unicorntopia was telling me.

When we're talking about being unconscious in regards to a perceiving function(in this case we're arguing that Ni is or isn't conscious), it means that we cannot make a logical framework from their given context, we need a judging function in order to make sense out of it. When we intuit that tomorrow is going to rain for example, you're not actually only using intuition in this matter(or sensing for that matter), you're also using some form of reasoning since you're concluding that something is going to happen based on something else(I see dark clouds). If I would solely use intuition all I would remark is " I see dark clouds" but I would not conclude that tomorrow is going to rain since that would require some sort of judgment from the incoming stimuli from my senses or in this case from my intuition.

So to reiterate, Ni/Si/Se/Ne is an unconscious process because you can't possibly do anything with the incoming information that you're receiving from your intuition or senses, it's just there, the real power lies in your conscious functions Ti, Fi, Fe or Te, which allows you to judge from what you've collected from perceiving.


----------



## Unicorntopia (Jun 18, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> Do you know why Jung called the perceiving function "irrational", while the judging function "rational"? If you did, you would know that an irrational function(Ni,Ne,Si,Se) is unconscious per se:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok then, roud: tell me the difference between an ISFJ and an INFJ?


----------



## Unicorntopia (Jun 18, 2010)

penchant said:


> The first paragraph quoted here is however directly from Jung's "Psychological Types", so that shouldn't be to readily dismissed. That said, I do think that understanding Ni as an unconscious process is a misunderstanding of the fact that Ni as a function operates closer to the unconscious than many other functions.


I think this is because Ni "pulls" Si info from the subconcious, whether it be ours or the collective one, and lumps it together in various ways to create various meanings (Ni).


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Unicorntopia said:


> I think this is because Ni "pulls" Si info from the subconcious, whether it be ours or the collective one, and lumps it together in various ways to create various meanings (Ni).


If you want it from the horse's mouth:



Jung said:


> Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation.


Archetypes, is what I see him saying there.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> The term "unconscious" seems to be having a negative connotation in this discussion, so let me try putting in my own words what unconscious means in the given typological definition.
> 
> When we're talking about the shadow functions, they are said to be unconscious because we are not readily aware of using them but they make up a vital component to our behavior operating from an inferior dichotomous paradigm. Ni is dichotomous to Si since you can't both be introverted intuiting and introverted sensing at the same time. I think this is what Unicorntopia was telling me.
> 
> ...


Yes, I had a feeling that there is something about the word itself that makes some things less clear than they should be. But I'm not convinced that the connection between the perceiving functions and the unconscious fully is as clear as you describe it either. I'm sorry that I don't have time to go deeper into this.

But as I read "Psychological Types" I get the impression that the unconscious attitude is simply the E attitude for an I type and vice versa.

And on S he says: "The function most affected by the repression, is, naturally, the one standing opposite to sensation, viz. intuition, the function of unconscious perception."

I still struggle with getting it all to add up...


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

"_Driven by _unconscious processes" makes sense. A lot of what is going on underneath I am not consciously aware of. But the top level I_ am _aware of and I can direct it to a degree.


----------



## pushit (Dec 20, 2012)

freeeekyyy said:


> Ni does use the past to make predictions. If it didn't, it would have horrible accuracy. It actually seems not all that different from what I understand Si to be, maybe a bit more generalized. I think a lot of misunderstanding of introverted intuition comes from comparing too closely to extraverted intuition. Both introverted perceiving functions are more like each other, and the same goes for the extraverted perceiving functions. I think that's mostly true for the judging functions as well, but that's another topic.
> 
> As far as Ti goes, I don't really know, I'm all Te. Whatever I know of Ti is mostly from research and not my own usage.


Doesn't Si also use the past to have an idea of a prediction, and then Ne is used to generate a prediction?

And as far as the differences between Ti/Ni (dominant?): from my understanding, both break any scenario, situation, or system down; but Ti looks at every piece, categorizes it, and analyzes the parts as a whole, and when combined with something like Ne, Ne generates new possibilities and connections related to the analysis of a part (or could that be Si?) which CAN come out of nowhere sometimes (Like, I could be studying the design and layout [both internal/external] of an orange. I notice that it is soft and tender, so Ne says: "Cut it open!". I cut it open into halves, and Ti discerns what is inside, notices that it is juicy and soft, then Ne says: "Squeeze it so liquid comes out, so you can have juice!". Or is that Ni+Te working together? [Ni looking at every different angle, and since Te is a Je function; orders action to be implemented upon analysis of angles? Hmm.]) From my understanding of Ni, it is similar to Ti, but instead of analyzing everything, it synthesizes everything; combining everything, all connections, visions, external information, from the past and present, and forms a hypothesis upon everything synthesized, with no limit to consistency or inconsistency? I can't really come up with an example of this.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@sinsandsecrets

Another thing is that foremost, Ti is "satisfied" with what it's come up with in a different way from how Ni is satisfied. The latter might, say, keep peering into the idealized {subjectively} form of what it is perceiving, perhaps guided by needing a vision for Je. 

The former is satisfied when its introverted check detects completeness, no gaps or lack of symmetry or consistency in the categorizations and relations drawn between them. 

Now I think both these processes occur in both Ni and Ti users, but which they most consciously manipulate is what we're looking at when we think about dominance. An Ni-dominant, for instance, basically suppresses sensation, because Ni registers the abstract intuitive form without a "categorization" flavor. Whereas Ti can refer directly to introverted sensing, for instance, to come up with its principles for reasoning. 



Also, hah, this thread is old.


----------



## pushit (Dec 20, 2012)

bearotter said:


> @_sinsandsecrets_
> 
> Another thing is that foremost, Ti is "satisfied" with what it's come up with in a different way from how Ni is satisfied. The latter might, say, keep peering into the idealized {subjectively} form of what it is perceiving, perhaps guided by needing a vision for Je.
> 
> ...


So, to attempt to interpret what you're saying...

I sometimes have things floating in my head related to certain things, but I can't put them into words or categorize them. It's almost like a weird time of internal sensing in the mind. Is that more of an Ni (or Ni-dominant) trait rather than Ti, since Ti would then rely on Si to clarify what is occuring in the mind (by pulling out vocabulary information, etc.?)

My mind is suppressed for other reasons right now, so I am having trouble coming up with examples.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_sinsandsecrets_

Basically, Ti in an INTP would probably have already formed its categorizations using a combo of Ne and Si, where Si records detailed introverted impressions of the sensing done. 

Also, Ti in an ISTP works sort of this way, but they consciously focus on Se data over Si data.

Although, where Ti may achieve terrific internal clarity (that's the whole point in a way, right - this is an internal judging function), a Ti user may have a hard time with Te, simply because for them the reasoning occurs within their introversion, whereas the special thing about Ni-Je is that their fluid vision is often adapting to and working towards the Je at least subconsciously.

Generally, with the data taken in, introverted functions tend to distill them in some in accordance with the user's subjectivity, so you may find introverted functions appear less expansive in a way. For instance, a Ti user may be tempted to represent what he perceives in an objective system, using subjective discretion as a collection of principles sensible to him/her which interplay with one another, but that does not change the system that, so to speak, the objective system is its own thing.


----------



## freeeekyyy (Feb 16, 2010)

sinsandsecrets said:


> Doesn't Si also use the past to have an idea of a prediction, and then Ne is used to generate a prediction?


I don't think Ne is able to reliably predict much of anything. Si/Ne users are mostly relying on Si when they make predictions. Ne is too broad, and too unfocused to predict anything. It's able to generate a million different ideas, but unable to pinpoint and conclude anything about any of them.


----------



## pushit (Dec 20, 2012)

freeeekyyy said:


> I don't think Ne is able to reliably predict much of anything. Si/Ne users are mostly relying on Si when they make predictions. Ne is too broad, and too unfocused to predict anything. It's able to generate a million different ideas, but unable to pinpoint and conclude anything about any of them.


I probably explained it wrong; I think I meant, Ne was used to jump-start a prediction (or the process of predicting). The focus of the contents of the prediction would be mainly used with Si, or Ti/Te.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

freeeekyyy said:


> . Ne is too broad, and too unfocused to predict anything. It's able to generate a million different ideas, but unable to pinpoint and conclude anything about any of them.




You're right not by itself, but when do we ever really use a function by itself? 
Ne is great at seeing abstract connections between not just concrete data but all its potential states and incarnations. 

Predicting a series of events amounts to both the vision of what events could occur and a filter which says whether they are likely. This filtering can be done with Ti-Fe for instance.


----------



## pushit (Dec 20, 2012)

bearotter said:


> Predicting a series of events amounts to both the vision of what events could occur and a filter which says whether they are likely. This filtering can be done with Ti-Fe for instance.
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]


Explain how Ti-Fe would filter?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> Hi guys. Lately I've been a bit confused about my type (INTP/INFJ). And I was wondering if this could be because I'm having trouble seeing the difference between Ni and Ti. To me, they both seem like a subjective "complete the pattern" function. But I think Ti is much more concerned with reaching a conclusion whereas Ni is more about "seeing" as much as possible. I don't know, it's hard to put into words. Anyway, can you guys explain their major differences?:mellow:


I actually struggled with this for a long time too! I feel like I might've been exactly where you're at not even a few months ago in fact because I've noticed we both have had similar thoughts about our own type in the past. I used to think, and a lot of other people used to think, I might be an ENTP, or an INTP, or an INTJ for example.

So, well let's see. First, I had to focus on creating some clear categories for these two functions that keep them from mixing conceptually. One is a form of judgment and one is a form of perception. To notice an _immediate_ difference between Ti and Ni, see if you can follow where I'm going with this.

Jung says that with perception, it's not a rational process. That is to say, that while I might _deliberately_ choose via my judgment to "look at" or perceive something in particular _the information that I receive_ about it is not something that I get to choose or have any rational control over. It just _is_ and appears to me more or less in this way. It doesn't have to be complete - I might need to keep looking, and indeed, this is where dominant perceptive functions gain their primacy and manifest in a person always driven to further and further perceptiveness. It's like they just can't ever get enough detail and information from their perceiving function, so they can't ever pass judgment on what they are perceiving.

Ti wouldn't be anything like this, you see. With Ti, you have a judgment already in mind. You _begin_ with a rational idea, it doesn't have to be one that you hold very _strongly_ you see - just as with perception, where you might not "see" the information clearly, so with judgment, you might not be very _certain_ because your reasoning isn't very clear. So judgment relies on perception to provide more information - but it doesn't always work like this. It takes an actual effort for a Ti-dom to leave their reasoning process in order to "investigate" and learn something to add to their existing pool of facts and knowledge. Ti-doms just want to spend _all their time_ processing information and "figuring things out" because that's what judgment is and does.

Ti is something you actually have a say in, you see? With perception, you're going to get an idea, but it isn't one you came up with. It just _comes_ out of your perception, either via your intuition or sensation. It's a package deal, take it or leave it. With rational thinking, it's somewhat similar, but you're in control to a certain extent. It's the _exact opposite flow and movement_ of perception, where, instead of receiving an idea, you're projecting one to see if it "fits".

A Ni-dom, or any kind of dominant perceiver, is going to be far less in control of wherever their cognition "ends up" in the sense that they won't be consciously applying as much judgment to whatever they perceive. They just want to "ride the wave" and see how far it goes, they want to receive the _whole image_ as much as possible, which demands that they suspend judgment in order to avoid manipulating or distorting pure perception. They don't want to _limit_ or block out any important details that would thus be missed because you wouldn't be paying full attention.

Ti-doms won't be as concerned with missing these details unless they pertained specifically to their line of reasoning and were necessary to "back it up" with evidence. What matters to them is the rational conclusion they have in mind, or they happen to be formulating at any given time, and that is what is going to determine where they focus their perception - not the other way around. Perception gets "slaved" to judgment, versus a Ni-dom, where judgment gets "slaved" to perception.

I think if you look at your own cognitive process and look for whether your judgment serves the purposes of your perception more, or vica versa, you'll get closer to figuring out your type for sure.

Of course, it also helps to look at the Dominant/Inferior relationship - far far FAR more important than whatever your auxiliary is. Knowing your dominant and inferior is going to go _much_ farther in revealing your type dynamics, and also will tend to be far more noticeable in people.

_EDIT: I really need to look at the DATE OF THE THREAD before I post. WTF. _


----------



## pushit (Dec 20, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I actually struggled with this for a long time too! I feel like I might've been exactly where you're at not even a few months ago in fact because I've noticed we both have had similar thoughts about our own type in the past. I used to think, and a lot of other people used to think, I might be an ENTP, or an INTP, or an INTJ for example.
> 
> So, well let's see. First, I had to focus on creating some clear categories for these two functions that keep them from mixing conceptually. One is a form of judgment and one is a form of perception. To notice an _immediate_ difference between Ti and Ni, see if you can follow where I'm going with this.
> 
> ...


So, an attempt to understand what you just said:

Ti-doms need to put all information inputed into their mind into words or categories in their head to fully understand it (e.g. imagining explaining such information to someone, in debate/conversation..)

Ni-doms look at information, but while looking at it, random perceptions pop up, and they are just very foofy ideas.

I may have been vague...


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@sinsandsecrets:

Well once Ne has laid out the full vision of the objective potential states, Ti will pass those states through its introverted systems to decide which is likely, but guided by Fe I think. Fe is an evaluative tool - it can sometimes use F to reason how likely something is, etc, objectively to be true, or reason something about the Ne data which involves feeling reasoning, and this gives Ti more detailed information to analyze using its systems.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

sinsandsecrets said:


> So, an attempt to understand what you just said:
> 
> Ti-doms need to put all information inputed into their mind into words or categories in their head to fully understand it (e.g. imagining explaining such information to someone, in debate/conversation..)
> 
> ...


Sort of.

I can't speak about how Ti _actually_ manifests subjectively in others, just how it works conceptually. But for me, the way you described it as this sort've internal monologue/dialogue where I am trying to frame all my ideas - that's very close to the actual experience I have of Ti.

As for Ni, it doesn't seem random at all. To a sensor I imagine it would, and thus be devalued. You called it "foofy ideas" - that's how a sensor looks at intuition and hunches. Negatively - they're unreliable, not to be trusted.

Intuitive types hold intuition to be _what matters most of all_ - it is their _principal cognitive function_ you see?

Thus, to the intuitive type, your insights are never just random - they are _always_ deeply meaningful, significant, and revealing of "truth" and must be given full attention and devotion in order to fully flourish.

As a Ni-dom myself, I'm always following my subjective intuitions as far as they will go. Even when the external world itself does not provide a real confirmation for my intuition, there is never the sense that my intuition is "wrong" - it just is too vague to "connect" with anything empirical. That, to my introverted world-view, doesn't necessarily negate the intuition. It just puts it on hold, or means I have to go further. If it was extroverted, then I'd be going outside for more information, but with subjective intuition, it comes from within, and you go inside and keep watching.


----------



## pushit (Dec 20, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Sort of.
> 
> As for Ni, it doesn't seem random at all. To a sensor I imagine it would, and thus be devalued. You called it "foofy ideas" - that's how a sensor looks at intuition and hunches. Negatively - they're unreliable, not to be trusted.
> 
> ...


Hmm, I see. I'll give you an example of a situation where I likely used intuition:

When I was 14, I was attending a summer camp, I noticed that there were some autistic kids that attended there from another school (more like moderate autism, so there was something odd about the students, but it was a little harder to distinguish if they had autism or not, maybe some sort of disability). I noticed that some of the staff talked to these students differently (like calling them "buddy" or explaining obvious things to them). I thought it was based on their autistic behaviors manifested that was leading them to get treated a different way. 

Then one day, I recall some camp member calling me buddy. I then freaked out internally, thinking up what I could have done to appear autistic? I thought up of more possibilities, even obsessing over it. Then I thought of the possibility of actually being autistic. I then started paying noble attention to these cues thrown around. I then concluded that whoever used these cues towards me must have thought I was autistic or "different".

Ni based?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

sinsandsecrets said:


> Hmm, I see. I'll give you an example of a situation where I likely used intuition:
> 
> When I was 14, I was attending a summer camp, I noticed that there were some autistic kids that attended there from another school (more like moderate autism, so there was something odd about the students, but it was a little harder to distinguish if they had autism or not, maybe some sort of disability). I noticed that some of the staff talked to these students differently (like calling them "buddy" or explaining obvious things to them). I thought it was based on their autistic behaviors manifested that was leading them to get treated a different way.
> 
> ...


It sounds like intuition, but the negative emotional context of your story suggests its inferiority within your cognition. I use the word inferior here only to mean what Jung means by it when he describes the way inferior functions work.


----------



## pushit (Dec 20, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> It sounds like intuition, but the negative emotional context of your story suggests its inferiority within your cognition. I use the word inferior here only to mean what Jung means by it when he describes the way inferior functions work.


So inferior Ni? Or Ne?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

sinsandsecrets said:


> So inferior Ni? Or Ne?


Either.

From your story, it's hard to say.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

sinsandsecrets said:


> So inferior Ni? Or Ne?


Sunds like inferior Ni.


----------



## pushit (Dec 20, 2012)

Ellis Bell said:


> Sunds like inferior Ni.


I mean, based solely on this story I would maybe agree, just not in general since I don't usually focus on the negative possibilities all of the time. And if I do, it's probably just a result of depression.

Hmm.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

sinsandsecrets said:


> I mean, based solely on this story I would maybe agree, just not in general since I don't usually focus on the negative possibilities all of the time. And if I do, it's probably just a result of depression.
> 
> Hmm.


Yeah something told me that it could just be related to that part of your life or something like that. That's why you might have to keep looking a bit. You want to try and decide if its an overall habitual kind of heuristic at work in your cognition or just circumstantial.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> I actually struggled with this for a long time too! I feel like I might've been exactly where you're at not even a few months ago in fact because I've noticed we both have had similar thoughts about our own type in the past. I used to think, and a lot of other people used to think, I might be an ENTP, or an INTP, or an INTJ for example.
> 
> So, well let's see. First, I had to focus on creating some clear categories for these two functions that keep them from mixing conceptually. One is a form of judgment and one is a form of perception. To notice an _immediate_ difference between Ti and Ni, see if you can follow where I'm going with this.
> 
> ...


Yeah, seriously, this thread is older than history. :tongue:

But I definitely see what you're saying. I feel almost _compelled_ to perceive and/or invent new possibilities, deciding which is actually true or feasible or whatever is more of an afterthought (though important, nonetheless). And when I stop to think about it, the reverse mindset seems bizarre and alien to me.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Psychosmurf said:


> Hi guys. Lately I've been a bit confused about my type (INTP/INFJ). And I was wondering if this could be because I'm having trouble seeing the difference between Ni and Ti. To me, they both seem like a subjective "complete the pattern" function. But I think Ti is much more concerned with reaching a conclusion whereas Ni is more about "seeing" as much as possible. I don't know, it's hard to put into words. Anyway, can you guys explain their major differences?:mellow:


Damn, I miss the old mellow face:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

freeeekyyy said:


> I don't think Ne is able to reliably predict much of anything. Si/Ne users are mostly relying on Si when they make predictions. Ne is too broad, and too unfocused to predict anything. It's able to generate a million different ideas, but unable to pinpoint and conclude anything about any of them.


Part of this may come from not having a good description of what Ne is? So far looking around on PerC I've seen some good trys, and I'm greatful, I think these are all helpful but not yet hitting the mark. Just because some of us flounder, or have periods of stability readjustment, does not mean that Ne dom is some kind of lost puppy land. I've worked with customers who are ENTP, and read a few books by people who were clearly ENTP, even if they did write (not intp) not primarily writers.

But, that being said, the lines still blurr a bit for me in reguard to what is Ti, Ni, and Ne. I think confusion comes from how they all have an element of creativity, and more that a superficial understanding of whatever they are considering.


Ni having an element of understanding of the principals within a system and maybe even knowing how to work that system.
Ne being able to deconstruct systems quickly with the intent of seeing what is essential to specific systems in order to innovate (cross-purposeing of systems in order to make new ones)
 And Ti being able to categorize, identify and explain the observation of systems, in order to do things like policy making and presenting of ideas.
 Not saying this is a great description. Any thought?
BTW, the 14 yr old, this was not function, it is just called being a teen ager, or being human?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Strife said:


> I understand everything that you've written but it's hard to get a practical working knowledge of how it manifests without real life examples. Conceptually it's fine, however:
> 
> Another way of defining intuition is as the way in which the mind associates one sort of information with another. Thus, "intuition can "bridge the gaps" between all of the other cognitive functions, either consciously or unconsciously. In a Ni-dom, this process is differentiated within consciousness, and so the person is consciously aware of this information as the lens through which they understand existence."
> 
> Okay, so how can I actually see this working in a person, how does it come up in conversation? I'm asking for examples from your life, or from other people you have seen manifest Ni processing cues because because I can see a lot of what you are talking about applying in different ways, and they all assuredly can't fall into Ni sort of hunches, associations, etc. If you give me something concrete like that to work with it will help me know exactly how to pin your descriptions in a way to really concretize these abstract descriptions further.



Intuition shows you associations between information sets. If it is introverted, then this appears to you to be a matter of subjective opinion. That is, whatever your intuition shows you, you understand that it is just your own interpretation, it's not a matter of fact that one information set implies anything about anything. Extraverted intuition shows you implications that appear to be matters of fact - NOT a matter of personal interpretation.

If you are looking for a Ni Dom, look for someone who knows that everything is a matter of interpretation, and is impossibly distracted all the time with coming up with possible ways of subjectively interpreting situations.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Just to drive the above home a little further, try to imagine if you just understood that everything we perceive is subjective. That means that just arbitrarily looking for intuitive associations and implications is a waste of time. Since everything is subjective anyway, then it becomes a question of what we WANT things to imply, and to that extent, someone with dominant introverted intuition is AMAZING at picking up on just how subjective any given situation or truth is. They love to point out how "anything can mean anything."

Ne users don't have that extreme of an approach to their intuitive insight. For Ne people, things just DO imply other things, and to them this does not seem like a subjective matter, but rather, a matter of fact. Because they are not conscious of the subjective aspect of their intuition. Within their consciousness they have differentiated an objective perspective, do you see?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*Abraxas* *Pointing out that Ni is perception and Ti is a judgement tool, is the clear, most useable piece of this thread. Thank you. But . . . . .* 
That people are often not conscious of functions other than dom, makes sense to a point. It is however, soooo observable that other functions play a part in how people operate. Part of my frustration with definitions on perC comes from being old enough to be more self aware?

*Nobody operates on perception, it just is.* For example Se - Fi, can act on what they believe or want, or care about, and have no idea really what they are doing in terms of a process being involved. They reacted according to Se, but not really. Se caught their attention and Fi made choices. Ne - Fi, can be carried by passion that *will* *be* satisfied by being the "cheerleader" for an existing concern. Whole function order "team work" of three functions can be adequately doing adaptation, and in so doing be "developed", more than the user knows.

*Example*:
Your own threads are a *distinctly different "flavor"* from *JungyesMBTIno*, threads. You both have a tendency toward "the wall of content" but so do INTP's (introversion). INFJ is much more aware of the audience (Ni - Fe), INTJ has a harshness but the intention is to be direct and stay on topic (Ni - Te). INTP's often have a dramatic or flowery flourish, not gushy, almost poetic? *Abraxas* you have more Ti involved than you know? *Conscious of it or not, your posts have more "meat" on them than other INFJ's on PerC.* You may be engaged in a combination of Ni - Fe - Ti, and believe it is mostly Ni.

*My point* here is that an Ne - Ti user, unless they happen to be surrounded by very smart friends, maybe, or they live on a spouse's income, or Ne led to a lucrative college major and trends lasted long enough that they are still riding the first wave, at some point they don't survive without conscious use of Ti. *Ti makes a lot of noise before zooming in on an action.* Te can be available just by breathing, but Ti users know they are going against the flow in some way. It doesn't match other people, and it's a longer process than Fi. Ti gathers data (like Te) but the aim is not compliance. The aim is to build it's own structure and make it's own opportunities. Maybe you don't see yours because Ti blends more seamlessly with Ni than it does with Ne?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> *Abraxas* *Pointing out that Ni is perception and Ti is a judgement tool, is the clear, most useable piece of this thread. Thank you. But . . . . .*
> That people are often not conscious of functions other than dom, makes sense to a point. It is however, soooo observable that other functions play a part in how people operate. Part of my frustration with definitions on perC comes from being old enough to be more self aware?
> 
> *Nobody operates on perception, it just is.* For example Se - Fi, can act on what they believe or want, or care about, and have no idea really what they are doing in terms of a process being involved. They reacted according to Se, but not really. Se caught their attention and Fi made choices. Ne - Fi, can be carried by passion that *will* *be* satisfied by being the "cheerleader" for an existing concern. Whole function order "team work" of three functions can be adequately doing adaptation, and in so doing be "developed", more than the user knows.
> ...


This seems to coincide with takes on the functions that claim a function isn't really a fungible process at all, but a way of preferring specific kinds of information to take in, emphasize, and send out.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> *Abraxas* *Pointing out that Ni is perception and Ti is a judgement tool, is the clear, most useable piece of this thread. Thank you. But . . . . .*
> That people are often not conscious of functions other than dom, makes sense to a point. It is however, soooo observable that other functions play a part in how people operate. Part of my frustration with definitions on perC comes from being old enough to be more self aware?
> 
> *Nobody operates on perception, it just is.* For example Se - Fi, can act on what they believe or want, or care about, and have no idea really what they are doing in terms of a process being involved. They reacted according to Se, but not really. Se caught their attention and Fi made choices. Ne - Fi, can be carried by passion that *will* *be* satisfied by being the "cheerleader" for an existing concern. Whole function order "team work" of three functions can be adequately doing adaptation, and in so doing be "developed", more than the user knows.
> ...


Because of our conversation, and for a few other reasons, I have posted a thread with an illustrative explanation of the ideas I am putting forth here.


http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/137799-illustrative-jungian-model.html

It is a bit long for an essay, but I wanted to be thorough.

I think you seem to be focusing more on the effect of type than the cause of it. When I read your posts there is a distinct sense that you are taking an "outside-looking-inward" approach to both understanding and explaining the functions.

When I formulate my own understanding I tend to do the reverse, building a strong conceptual understanding that I then "match up" with my observations. This probably accounts for the disparity between our interpretations.

Also, your observation that I exhibit a great deal of Ti judgment is right on the money. I have personally confirmed that my function order is Ni-Ti/Fe, with Ti leading Fe only because most of my life I have had to repress my emotions, due to being intuitive and experimental about them while everyone around me was not. This led to strong negative reciprocity from my mother and later my grandmother who raised me to be an ISFJ. Because I could not just accept their Si-based wisdom, and they lacked the intuition to relate to me, I had to define my own understanding and I have always been an "intellectual rebel" you might say, using Ni-Ti to subjectively deconstruct everything and anything people believe in and show them a world that is totally subjective.

I'm older now and learning to reintegrate my feelings into my judgment consciously instead of unconsciously, so for the time being my judgment auxiliary shows a great deal of flux between thinking and feeling, leading me in the past to believe I was an NT type.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*Abraxas* I certainly have enjoyed some of your "work" on PerC. Your Ti development will serve you well!
I think the types are the types, even though we have adjustment periods where we need new contexts and new data or experience shifts. Your double introversion Ni - Ti is offset at least a little bit by being here.
:happy::happy:

Irony noted. I'm telling you, you can't be Ni - Ti - Fe - Se, while insisting that I shape-shift between INTP and ENTP.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Irony noted. I'm telling you, you can't be Ni - Ti - Fe - Se, while insisting that I shape-shift between INTP and ENTP.


Now I'm totally confused. I don't see where I said that, not do understand how it would refute my conclusions.

It seems somehow at some point we've drifted away from the same page here. Could you explain?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Now I'm totally confused. I don't see where I said that, not do understand how it would refute my conclusions.
> 
> It seems somehow at some point we've drifted away from the same page here. Could you explain?


You seem Ni - Fe - Ti - Se to me. 
Not sure I understand what you were getting at with the diagram, other than it expresses how you feel right now, which isn't exactly the same as functions you are using.
Your posts are insightful, not dry the way Te can get. Philosophy is a little bit like an Fe stand in? This website is an Fe source for you too (a context for Fe judgement). Ni - Ti is at some point maladaptive. Our introverted and extroverted functions offset each other. Just because you use Ti doesn't mean Fe has become irrelevant.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> You seem Ni - Fe - Ti - Se to me.
> Not sure I understand what you were getting at with the diagram, other than it expresses how you feel right now, which isn't exactly the same as functions you are using.
> Your posts are insightful, not dry the way Te can get. Philosophy is a little bit like an Fe stand in? This website is an Fe source for you too (a context for Fe judgement). Ni - Ti is at some point maladaptive. Our introverted and extroverted functions offset each other. Just because you use Ti doesn't mean Fe has become irrelevant.


Sounds like MBTI.

The thing is Jung never said anything to even remotely suggest that auxiliary functions had to have the opposite attitude as the dominant function. In fact, if one reads into it a bit, there is far more evidence to suggest from his work that only the inferior function has the opposite attitude, and any function of which the individual was _consciously_ using would necessarily share the same attitude as consciousness itself.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

In fact when he talks about Principal and Auxiliary functions, he mentions how what he presented were more like caricatures . . .
In the foregoing descriptions . . . blah blah bla . . And that's where he makes the case for an auxiliary of inferior differentiation, based on actual case examination. *I suppose he doesn't exactly take it any further than that*, but we see right here on PerC, more than eight types. MBTI does make sense to me from observations right here and in real life.

And that is where you already mentioned that you and I differ. You are looking structurally from the inside. I am looking at how function order theory plays out according to what I see, across people, and groups of people. Even if you are not actively engaging Fe (which seems to be getting a bad name around perC?), doesn't mean it isn't part of who you are.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> In fact when he talks about Principal and Auxiliary functions, he mentions how what he presented were more like caricatures . . .
> In the foregoing descriptions . . . blah blah bla . . And that's where he makes the case for an auxiliary of inferior differentiation, based on actual case examination. *I suppose he doesn't exactly take it any further than that*, but we see right here on PerC, more than eight types. MBTI does make sense to me from observations right here and in real life.
> 
> And that is where you already mentioned that you and I differ. You are looking structurally from the inside. I am looking at how function order theory plays out according to what I see, across people, and groups of people. Even if you are not actively engaging Fe (which seems to be getting a bad name around perC?), doesn't mean it isn't part of who you are.


I agree, and I would be a fool in my own opinion to ignore how clearly Fe shows up in my own cognitive process. My only point is that differentiation is an ongoing process that unfolds across an entire lifetime, and not always at the same pace from person to person.

I would never argue that a person lacks an auxiliary function. That would contradict the theory and Jung himself points out that in almost every standard case you will find an auxiliary function differentiated to some extent. He never goes farther than to say that perception pairs with judgment and vica versa however, and after that, well, everyone has their opinions.

MBTI really doesn't make much sense to me to be honest, and neither does Socionics for that matter. When you said you see MBTI confirmed in your own experience - well, I feel the opposite. The more I learn about Freud and Jung, the more I start to see how MBTI really isn't something to be taken very seriously, as it strays so far from the original work - and the work that followed Jung - that it has basically become to Jungian psychology what Micheal Bay is to Transformers.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yea. The auxiliary exists, but I don't think Jung considered it that far above an inferior in most cases (which is a far cry from the way MBTI promotes it). It can be developed near the same level as the dominant, but to him, I doubt he would consider that a fully-differentiated function (like pure Fe in an MBTI INFJ), since the person doesn't lead with it. If it were extraverted for introverts, he probably would find that closer to inferior status in terms of their dominant personality - I tend to suspect it, in that case, would be the superior compensation of the inferior of an introvert, but an inferior in terms of the dominant (if undifferentiated, it might be a superior function complementing the dominant). One of the experts can correct me if I'm wrong, which I might be misinterpreting Jung, but that's kind of what I get out of Jung on this. By "inferior" anyway, I think Jung mostly meant that a person just doesn't "own" the function toward their ego identity in a very easily adaptable way. Sure, you might find people who are very well-developed with their aux., but I'm not sure Jung would consider MBTI superiority of the aux. even necessary to a person having a differentiated ego structure to begin with.


----------



## Dental Floss Tycoon (Apr 4, 2011)

I've been thinking that I could be either INTP, INTJ or INFJ. Reading this thread, I believe I'm mostly inclined towards Ti-dom. 

From my experience: Ni people tend to be sure of themselves, or at least sure of their ideas. They have that kind of gut instinct many famous characters show - like Sherlock Holmes. Ti-dom are way more doubtful, of themselves and everything else. I myself spend most of my free time categorizing and trying to understand my own thoughts, feelings as well as many fields of knowledge, instincts are VERY repressed. I'm a perfectionist to the extreme when it comes to precise understanding of anything. The only reason I've not written academic essays about my own feelings, dreaminess and general impressions is because I'm afraid it would look ridiculous. :tongue: As a result of that, my knowledge about stuff always seems incomplete and inefficient. I also don't like posting on PerC due to my limited vocabulary in English, since it's not my mother tongue and don't practice it enough to have a solid range of words; so my posts look like there's something missing when I read them after posting - like I don't master the topic I'm talking about.

The feeling I have after describing and/or explaining something at a reasonably (to my standards) accurate, precise level, is one of the best in my life.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@JungyesMBTIno,

That's the root of my issue with MBTI.

I almost feel like MBTI is focusing too much on some kind of outward persona as the basis of type.

Consider that Myers-Briggs intended for her instrument to be used in a workplace environment. How is that not obviously focusing on persona? Who I am at work is who I am at work. That's so irrelevant to my entire personality as to almost seem insulting, right?

How MBTI has evolved into the bloated superficial mainstream monstrosity it has it just beyond me, but I just assume it reflects the way anything with even a remotely mystical background gets sensationalized as soon as it hits the mainstream, regardless of the author's intentions. Now we have this walking zombie of a psychological theory called MBTI, and Socionics?

I imagine Jung would be rolling in his grave if he knew how absurd and out-of-hand things have gotten.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> @_JungyesMBTIno_,
> 
> That's the root of my issue with MBTI.
> 
> ...


Peter Drucker, a management guy with a lot of studies and books, has said quite a few things that make sense (as I see things played out). 

In one of his books he notes how what an individual may be good at, and what holds meaning for him, is not always the same. Drucker points out that where you find that intersection, is where you find the best productivity. 
*Isn't that exactly what ideal adaptation is?* Work being at ods with who a person is, is a less than ideal adaptation. Often the gap though, is between how the person wants to think of themselves vs what they actualy want. Plus, adaptation has to be a kind of ongoing process.

The extream of web trivializations is just human nature. Tests about actual brain activity are more interesting.
Maybe somewhere between Jung and brain scanns we will find a more usefull tool?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Pseudonimum said:


> I've been thinking that I could be either INTP, INTJ or INFJ. Reading this thread, I believe I'm mostly inclined towards Ti-dom.
> 
> From my experience: Ni people tend to be sure of themselves, or at least sure of their ideas. They have that kind of gut instinct many famous characters show - like Sherlock Holmes. Ti-dom are way more doubtful, of themselves and everything else. I myself spend most of my free time categorizing and trying to understand my own thoughts, feelings as well as many fields of knowledge, instincts are VERY repressed. I'm a perfectionist to the extreme when it comes to precise understanding of anything. The only reason I've not written academic essays about my own feelings, dreaminess and general impressions is because I'm afraid it would look ridiculous. :tongue: As a result of that, my knowledge about stuff always seems incomplete and inefficient. I also don't like posting on PerC due to my limited vocabulary in English, since it's not my mother tongue and don't practice it enough to have a solid range of words; so my posts look like there's something missing when I read them after posting - like I don't master the topic I'm talking about.
> 
> The feeling I have after describing and/or explaining something at a reasonably (to my standards) accurate, precise level, is one of the best in my life.


I think your reference to Holmes is a good one... though as time goes on he seems to be shifted from a strong INTJ to some INTx mutant to very nearly xNTP in the current BBC version. 

I'll tell you that as a Ti dom, I am and have always been rather absolutely sure of my ideas.... though not at all sure of myself. I do not equate the two. When I settle on something in my mind, I am sure of it.... I will only be deterred by a strong argument, though I am also the generator of such an argument. I have lively debates with myself... but the point is that it is STRONG and subjective... but also slow, careful, and internalized. It's STRONG because it's dominant. The rest is because it's introverted. Typically, you can say it is dominant because you use it easily, often, and skillfully. 

Your anecdote of academic essays, for example, does not apply to me. If the subject is properly abstract or can be made to be properly abstract, I will happily write an essay on a subject I know very little about. I actually rather think that Ne has a lot to do with this. I just start writing and I know it will come to me. I've met many Ne (especially ENTP) who feel similarly in this regard and I've never met an Ni who does. Sometimes Se can do this... but more in the realm of the physical.. like art and negotiation. 

So, I don't think the anecdote necessarily applies... at least not in the manner intended. Perhaps it is a hint against Ti/Ne?
@Abraxas - It's Jung's own damn fault. He totally pulled a Jesus on us and died without properly laying out what in the hell the people who followed him were actually supposed to do. Left to interpret, people will do just that. The question is, would we have it any other way? I rather like open source psychology and try to take the good with the bad.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*@Pseudonimum * *what you see about one being sure of one's self* has actually been said of ISTP in other posts. That would fit with Ti-Se-Ni-Fe, Ti getting what it wants and validating reality from Se is a yes or no, relatively sure footing. Ni - Fe - Ti - Se, INFJ, would touch the external world through Fe and this can be precarious, especialy if the social context has a lot of it's own problems. INTJ individuals may have whatever issues an individual can have, but the premise of using Te, again has a yes or no kind of thing to it. Each style or type has its own up and downside possibilities. My own experience says Ne is a bit of a rollercoaster at some times and a guiding light at other times. People who lead with Se or Te have what I am occasionally envious of, a kind of bulldozer mode, also something that can be a blessing or a curse.

*I'm making my case for function order*, that it all fits and makes sense as a system. Functions in correlation to what Jung described, but structured in sets of four with alternating introvert and extroverted attitudes, describe forms or different modes of adaptation. Adaptation being the way a personality tries to make or find a place in the world, aligning internal values and external realities. Not sure details about the functions themselves, from various systems have much that is worthwhile to offer. The biggest problem is symantics and the way we are often describing symptoms, not the actual processes.

*Pseudonimum*, you mentioned ideas often enough that makes me think Ne aux, BTW, love the avatar.


----------

