# Ne vs Ni and Open Ended Questions



## Hanaseru (May 29, 2013)

Hmm.. So I just had a thought about how Ne:s and Ni:s do open ended questions.

I doubt this is correct, but let's see.

Ne:s would write everything that comes to their minds and sometimes stray away from the topic.

Ni:s would stay on the point


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

I do both, but more of staying on the point


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

Ni: seeks to answer the question.

Ne: seeks to derive more possibilities from the question (may even desire to not have it answered.)


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I have mixed experiences from Ni-doms. Overall they've been useful, but there is one specific INFJ that just goes too far I guess. He always assumes things that I never wrote, or assumed myself and based on these he derails my points totally.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

What people are attributing to Ni would appear to me to tie more into the fact that Ni types prefer Se to Ne perception and probably Je to Pe. Se does not speculate, it gathers detail in a direct way and the way Ni users engage data can thus appear more exacting. Se and Je valued above Ne tends to create a different attitude towards info.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Both seeks answers. Ne wants as much information as they can in order to consider all the variables. Ni just picks a few key points and drives into them. But they both seek answers.


----------



## enigmawrappedinbacon (Sep 20, 2013)

Sometimes the question will not lead to the right solution. Gotta question the question before you start giving answers.

It's like when you're working for a web firm and asking the customer what their requirements are for their site, and they say they want an animated gif on the main page. And let's say the framework you're using to develop the site doesn't display animated GIFs well, they're all stuttery. If you go down the rabbit hole of "must do animated GIF, how do we solve stutter problems?" now the programmer has to do all sorts of gymnastics to make the GIF display smoothly. And what about when the customer wants different pictures in the GIF? Programmer has to re-create GIF since customer doesn't have the tech skills to do it.

The original problem/issue/question was wrong. The customers doesn't necessarily need *an animated GIF." That's just the term they used, and they don't know of other terms or approaches. What they fundamentally want is a way to automatically, at timed intervals, display images on the web site. And there are many ways to do that. One of the ways is to write a little script that points to a directory of images and says "scroll through these at time interval = 4 seconds." And the customer is tech savvy enough to put new images in a directory so programmer doesn't need to mess around when customer gets new product pics they want highlighted on the main page.

So going too directly from a question to the answers without exploring whether the question is the right question, is not a good idea. One of the places where it's an advantage to have people who explore options outside the stated problem bounary.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

enigmawrappedinbacon said:


> Sometimes the question will not lead to the right solution. Gotta question the question before you start giving answers.
> 
> It's like when you're working for a web firm and asking the customer what their requirements are for their site, and they say they want an animated gif on the main page. And let's say the framework you're using to develop the site doesn't display animated GIFs well, they're all stuttery. If you go down the rabbit hole of "must do animated GIF, how do we solve stutter problems?" now the programmer has to do all sorts of gymnastics to make the GIF display smoothly. And what about when the customer wants different pictures in the GIF? Programmer has to re-create GIF since customer doesn't have the tech skills to do it.
> 
> ...


Which is also why the customer has to have someone who is at least somewhat competent at what they're doing on their side during the spec'ing.


----------



## enigmawrappedinbacon (Sep 20, 2013)

"Which is also why the customer has to have someone who is at least somewhat competent at what they're doing on their side during the spec'ing."

So very very rare.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

enigmawrappedinbacon said:


> "Which is also why the customer has to have someone who is at least somewhat competent at what they're doing on their side during the spec'ing."
> 
> So very very rare.


Which is why I'm currently coordinating a $2m project to redo shit that was done 2 years ago by someone who wasn't very competent.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

You know, this thread made me realize something. The way I'm used to answering open ended questions is a classic model of how Ni works. I present all the most basic data that has anything to do with the topic, and from there I derive and slowly go into presenting data that is directly connected with the question, and in the last sentence I present my answer ("thus, ... bla bla bla").


----------



## Hanaseru (May 29, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> You know, this thread made me realize something. The way I'm used to answering open ended questions is a classic model of how Ni works. I present all the most basic data that has anything to do with the topic, and from there I derive and slowly go into presenting data that is directly connected with the question, and in the last sentence I present my answer ("thus, ... bla bla bla").


Me too.

I actually thought of this while thinking of my TEST (WHICH I REALLY WANT TO GET BACK LIKE RIGHT NOW) and a tangent coming from that thought about a teacher who used to say that everybody kept on throwing everything they knew at the questions, instead of all that is needed to have a correct answer, and me realizing that I rarely actually did that.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Hanaseru said:


> Me too.
> 
> I actually thought of this while thinking of my TEST (WHICH I REALLY WANT TO GET BACK LIKE RIGHT NOW) and a tangent coming from that thought about a teacher who used to say that everybody kept on throwing everything they knew at the questions, instead of all that is needed to have a correct answer, and me realizing that I rarely actually did that.


I actually used to give very short and concise answers, until my teacher drilled into my head that I need to answer the questions as if the one reading it doesn't know anything about the topic. There was no use in insisting, since it would just hurt my grades, so I came up with this formula.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mbaruh said:


> I actually used to give very short and concise answers, until my teacher drilled into my head that I need to answer the questions as if the one reading it doesn't know anything about the topic. There was no use in insisting, since it would just hurt my grades, so I came up with this formula.


My INTJ boyfriend always used to do that when he was younger, and he still finds it very hard to explain things some things "it's just how it is, I can't explain it".
I guess that INFJ I mentioned before does that as well. Each post he makes he assumes that I understand something which he doesn't mention. Like he goes on and makes a weird connection between two things, then posts some pictures and without any real explanation expects me to understand. My Ne goes haywire at this point because I'm trying to guess what he's talking about but it's like what they say each picture is 1000 words, but WHICH words is the problem.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Red Panda said:


> My INTJ boyfriend always used to do that when he was younger, and he still finds it very hard to explain things some things "it's just how it is, I can't explain it".
> I guess that INFJ I mentioned before does that as well. Each post he makes he assumes that I understand something which he doesn't mention. Like he goes on and makes a weird connection between two things, then posts some pictures and without any real explanation expects me to understand. My Ne goes haywire at this point because I'm trying to guess what he's talking about but it's like what they say each picture is 1000 words, but WHICH words is the problem.


Haha, sounds very accurate. People with strong Ni will usually do the process in their head and express only their end result. I usually try not to do that since it really confuses people like you said, the problem is that when I reach the answer, I don't remember the process myself xD


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

With Ne, it's like you want to tackle all possible ideas that could be associated with the open-ended question, and even things attached to those possibilities that might not even make sense to the original question.

If the person is looking for simple answers, you start spouting off the most obvious ideas, and then it snow-balls from there. 

If your Ne is strong, you can't just answer a question with only one or a few ideas. At least I can't, not easily. It depends on the question, I suppose... 

But, the majority of time, I throw out everything I can think of, change my mind verbally, expand on those ideas, and eventually land on the one idea the other person might be looking for.

It really frustrates people when you've deviated from the question a great deal and they don't see the current tangent-connection, coupled with the fact that everything you say is subject to change, and not even necessarily based on 'personal opinion'... To an onlooker not well-versed in Ne, it's probably incredibly frustrating.

Whereas, when I'm met with strong Ni, they're likely to go, ''I think this, therefore this, and so we should do this.'' Finalized, completed, all done up with a bow in their head, and I'm likely to go, ''But, let's not stop there! What if this, or this, or this, and this, plus this? Ooooh, and let's not forget this!'' Talk for awhile, and then BAM, more ideas based off of new verbal contexts. 

Ni person watches crazy Ne person and then: Bonks. Head. On. Keyboard. Ne person doesn't notice.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Word Dispenser said:


> Whereas, when I'm met with strong Ni, they're likely to go, ''I think this, therefore this, and so we should do this.''


Sounds more like Je conclusions but it's difficult to say what kind of perception would inform it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> My INTJ boyfriend always used to do that when he was younger, and he still finds it very hard to explain things some things "it's just how it is, I can't explain it".
> I guess that INFJ I mentioned before does that as well. Each post he makes he assumes that I understand something which he doesn't mention. Like he goes on and makes a weird connection between two things, then posts some pictures and without any real explanation expects me to understand. My Ne goes haywire at this point because I'm trying to guess what he's talking about but it's like what they say each picture is 1000 words, but WHICH words is the problem.


Sounds like introversion but doesn't indicate Ni or even Pi per se. I think all introverts operate like this on some level.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Hanaseru said:


> Ne:s would write everything that comes to their minds and sometimes stray away from the topic.
> 
> Ni:s would stay on the point





seiei said:


> Ni: seeks to answer the question.
> 
> Ne: seeks to derive more possibilities from the question (may even desire to not have it answered.)





mushr00m said:


> Both seeks answers. Ne wants as much information as they can in order to consider all the variables. Ni just picks a few key points and drives into them. But they both seek answers.





Word Dispenser said:


> With Ne, it's like you want to tackle all possible ideas that could be associated with the open-ended question, and even things attached to those possibilities that might not even make sense to the original question.





Word Dispenser said:


> Whereas, when I'm met with strong Ni, they're likely to go, ''I think this, therefore this, and so we should do this.'' Finalized, completed, all done up with a bow in their head, and I'm likely to go, ''But, let's not stop there! What if this, or this, or this, and this, plus this? Ooooh, and let's not forget this!'' Talk for awhile, and then BAM, more ideas based off of new verbal contexts.
> 
> Ni person watches crazy Ne person and then: Bonks. Head. On. Keyboard. Ne person doesn't notice.



To all of you: why is that what you ascribe to Ni more introverted and that what you ascribe to Ne more extraverted?

What exactly makes distraction, expansion and lots of possibilities extraverted?!

Introverted intuitive people may be not so talkative and reduce their thoughts when it comes to communication. But I don't see why Ni-types should not also be captured by lots of possibilities or "unnecessary" further implications of everything. 

That reduction and staying on the point thing (not only in communication but in general) ... why should it be more introverted somehow? Because introverted people have better concentration? That would be an occasional side effect (and would contradict the Ji-Pe constellation if that exists). For me it sounds more like a possible effect of an influential thinking function. Or impatience, or laziness... Not everything has to be strictly bound to functions or types.

I guess it depends on the person how we handle open ended questions. Intuition is unpredictable anyway... it's hard to find certain features of it that make it more Ne or Ni. The way I see it the difference between them would always be rather vague and rough to describe.

I sometimes follow random implications for a long time and sometimes I proceed methodically. 

Also, aren't those quick-smart-funny answers a Ne-thing sometimes?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Dastan said:


> To all of you: why is that what you ascribe to Ni more introverted and that what you ascribe to Ne more extraverted?
> 
> What exactly makes distraction, expansion and lots of possibilities extraverted?!
> 
> ...


Hum, I didn't mean that it was 'introverted', as much as I meant 'introverted intuition'. But, there are plenty of examples of introverted intuition in extroverts. 
I just spend more time with introverts, because they tend to be more interesting. :tongue: 

So, that's why my example included an introvert who possesses introverted intuition.

From the way I understand Ni... I think that it is just more in depth, and can come on suddenly, and seems incredibly expansive. It's not necessarily 'strictly' on topic, but it manages to have a better hold on the topic than Ne.

And it's probably more useful than Ne, in the majority of cases. It seems to be more impressive, because of it's ability to go in depth quickly. 

Whereas Ne seems to go through a breadth of ideas quickly, with no depth.


----------



## Hanaseru (May 29, 2013)

mbaruh said:


> Haha, sounds very accurate. People with strong Ni will usually do the process in their head and express only their end result. I usually try not to do that since it really confuses people like you said, the problem is that when I reach the answer, I don't remember the process myself xD


Math Homework:

Teacher: show all work

-writes only two steps-

Teacher: WHERE IS YOUR WORK?

Me: I showed it all >:


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

> To all of you: why is that what you ascribe to Ni more introverted and that what you ascribe to Ne more extraverted?
> 
> What exactly makes distraction, expansion and lots of possibilities extraverted?!


Read Jung.



> Introverted intuitive people may be not so talkative and reduce their thoughts when it comes to communication. But I don't see why Ni-types should not also be captured by lots of possibilities or "unnecessary" further implications of everything.


Both forms of intuition are concerned with implications. For Ni implications converge, for Ne implications diverge. As a result:

Ni = looking behind the curtain
Ne = idea spawning

Ni = From many, one.
Ne = From one, many.



> That reduction and staying on the point thing (not only in communication but in general) ... why should it be more introverted somehow? Because introverted people have better concentration? That would be an occasional side effect (and would contradict the Ji-Pe constellation if that exists). For me it sounds more like a possible effect of an influential thinking function. Or impatience, or laziness... Not everything has to be strictly bound to functions or types.


When Ni considers possibilities they are few in number and often interconnected. It wants to see things from different angles and end up with one hidden truth, one discovery that synthesizes everything. Ni gains insight and generates ideas by viewing the context from various angles. When bombarded with overwhelmingly amounts of stimuli, Ni quickly chooses what to discard and what to keep (what is kept is determined upon their relation to each other.) Ne would be mortified at this.

Ne will consider hundreds of possibilities, many of them unrelated to the original idea (at first glance, to them, there is a relation. Ne is about establishing that relation and creating a web of ideas, a framework.) Ne gains insight and generates ideas by expanding the context. When bombarded with lots of stimuli Ne is as happy as can be and will add even more to that, gaining comfort in idea generation.

Notice how Ni moves inward and Ne moves outward? That's where the introverted / extroverted dichotomy comes into play. 

Another point, Ni is fine with it's own company. Notice that Ni doms rarely feel the need to share their Ni ideas and insights with others. When asked about them, we usually deflect the question using our auxiliary function. Ni is fine with it's own company.

Ne must interact with others and the world. It must share it's ideas and have them appreciated by others. 



> I guess it depends on the person how we handle open ended questions. Intuition is unpredictable anyway... it's hard to find certain features of it that make it more Ne or Ni. The way I see it the difference between them would always be rather vague and rough to describe.


I disagree.



> I sometimes follow random implications for a long time and sometimes I proceed methodically.


Same. 

I have a question. When you follow random implications what is the end result? Does it condense or continually expand with no end?


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

> From the way I understand Ni... I think that it is just more in depth, and can come on suddenly, and seems incredibly expansive. *It's not necessarily 'strictly' on topic*, but it manages to have a better hold on the topic than Ne.


That's a key point. Ni is a non-linear function, there is nothing structured or organized about it's processes. 

Take for example, a rainforest. Imagine Ne as a bird flying overhead, and it continually flies higher to gain better sight of the entire forest. Ni jumps from organism to organism viewing things from the sky, the ground, the perspectives of the prey and hunters, etc. Ni gravitates to a single "fuzzy" idea, concept, or etc. and links things to it, which is why it appears to be staying on topic, it's just temporary fixation.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

seiei said:


> Read Jung.


I did (several times that chapter X) and I really wonder what you mean by that. The word "possibility" is very frequent in the description of extraverted intuition. Also the Ne-type seems to be very unsteady and deflectable, always seeking the new. But that does not suffice to claim those definite differences between Ne and Ni. It even seems to be the same in the Ni-type but more in mind than in action. 



seiei said:


> Both forms of intuition are concerned with implications. For Ni implications converge, for Ne implications diverge. As a result:
> 
> Ni = looking behind the curtain
> Ne = idea spawning
> ...


Where does Jung claim that this would be the difference between both? 



seiei said:


> When Ni considers possibilities they are few in number and often interconnected. It wants to see things from different angles and end up with one hidden truth, one discovery that synthesizes everything. Ni gains insight and generates ideas by viewing the context from various angles. When bombarded with overwhelmingly amounts of stimuli, Ni quickly chooses what to discard and what to keep (what is kept is determined upon their relation to each other.) Ne would be mortified at this.
> 
> Ne will consider hundreds of possibilities, many of them unrelated to the original idea (at first glance, to them, there is a relation. Ne is about establishing that relation and creating a web of ideas, a framework.) Ne gains insight and generates ideas by expanding the context. When bombarded with lots of stimuli Ne is as happy as can be and will add even more to that, gaining comfort in idea generation.


Even if this all is true, I do not see a coherent connection to the concepts of subject and object or introversion and extraversion (besides that part about lots of stimuli).



seiei said:


> Notice how Ni moves inward and Ne moves outward? That's where the introverted / extroverted dichotomy comes into play.


Inward or outward into what? How do you connect multitude with the external object and small quantity with the subject? As if intuitions would somehow be drawn to the object when they produce too many ideas. Only the other way seems a bit plausible to me: reducing many things to few being introverted since it changes and "voids" the object. But Jungs description of the Ni-type doesn't really look like somebody who is "staying to the point" and limits his inner life. 



seiei said:


> I disagree.


Ok.



seiei said:


> I have a question. When you follow random implications what is the end result? Does it condense or continually expand with no end?


Hmm, I don't know actually. Often I tend to search for the _core_ of something. But also often and unintended I produce eternal "construction sides" thereby or draw the attention to further things.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

seiei said:


> When Ni considers possibilities they are few in number and often interconnected. It wants to see things from different angles and end up with one hidden truth, one discovery that synthesizes everything. Ni gains insight and generates ideas by viewing the context from various angles. When bombarded with overwhelmingly amounts of stimuli, Ni quickly chooses what to discard and what to keep (what is kept is determined upon their relation to each other.) Ne would be mortified at this.


Just a little example to show that there are counterexamples or other ways to see it:

By stimuli, do you mean the outer sensory stimuli?
I think it is not wild speculation to assume that both kind of intuitions provide more or less the same "data volume" eventually. And who would claim that extraverted peoples mind is "more filled" than introverted ones. When considering that, if Ni chooses less parts of outer stimuli to work with and Ne is more happy when bombarded with stimuli, wouldn't that actually suggest that Ni _produces_ or _expands_ more, in relation to the stimuli?


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

> I did (several times that chapter X) and I really wonder what you mean by that. The word "possibility" is very frequent in the description of extraverted intuition. Also the Ne-type seems to be very unsteady and deflectable, always seeking the new. But that does not suffice to claim those definite differences between Ne and Ni. *It even seems to be the same in the Ni-type but more in mind than in action.*


I don't understand what you're trying to say. 

Explain the differences between the two (or lack thereof) in your own words as clear as possible.



> Where does Jung claim that this would be the difference between both?


Was not quoting Jung I was summarizing a handful of Ni/Ne descriptions based upon his work. Is it really neccessary for me to quote him or direct you to online sources if you've already read him? You should know how he describes Ni and Ne if that's the case.



> Even if this all is true, I do not see a coherent connection to the concepts of subject and object or introversion and extraversion (besides that part about lots of stimuli).


Introversion: Attention is turned inwards. It recharges by looking within. It is concerned with the internal over the external.

Extroversion: Attention is turned outwards. It recharges by looking to the outer world. It is concerned with the external over the internal.

Ni = internal abstraction
Ne = external abstraction

Si = past experience (memory recall)
Se = immediate sensory information

Fi = internal / personal values
Fe = group values / harmony

Ti = internal systems of logic
Te = empiricism

We can agree that Ni is concerned with the self, the internal world, it's internal abstractions. Going more in depth with that, the abstractions are personalized, only readily understood by the user of the function itself (it does not care if others understand it.) I don't know how else to explain this, introverted functions are turned inward, external functions are turned outward. 

Ni does not condense information as a result of being an introverted function. The goal of it is synthesis + definitive insight. Insight requires foresight, not idea spawning, it condenses and connects the information it works with to generate specific and clear pictures of what will be. With that being its game why would it take on overstimulating possibilities that derail or hinder it's abstractions?

What happens when you throw a ton of options at an Ni dom/aux? They'll synthesize it all and come up with one insight regarding it, or one plan of action. Do the same for an Ne dom/aux and you'll end up with a thousand more options.



> Inward or outward into what?


Inward into the self, outward onto the environment. 



> How do you connect multitude with the external object and small quantity with the subject?


I never implied this.

Ni as a cognitive function will condense the information it works with, Ne will expand it. I was talking about those specific functions, not generalizing; external objects, quantities, and subjects. 



> But Jungs description of the Ni-type doesn't really look like somebody who is "staying to the point" and limits his inner life.


I made this point in another post actually. 



> Hmm, I don't know actually. Often I tend to search for the _core_ of something. But also often and unintended I produce eternal "construction sides" thereby or draw the attention to further things.


That sounds like Ni. Condensing towards the core and gaining a long term of internal image of the things that will come.

Ne would stray from that core and seek to spread as far as possible.

The end locations differ. Ne sprints off in every direction, Ni walks towards the center of all things.

Once again, outward vs inward.


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

> By stimuli, do you mean the outer sensory stimuli?


Not necessarily but if we're talking Ni and Ne the nature of that stimuli does not matter. Ni will abstract it either way and Ne will expand upon it.



> I think it is not wild speculation to assume that both kind of intuitions provide more or less the same "data volume" eventually.


No way to test or verify this, it's all speculation. You're focusing way too much on 'data volume,' which I only really used as an example to aid in expressing my thoughts. 



> And who would claim that extraverted peoples mind is "more filled" than introverted ones.


Is that seriously what you pulled from what I typed?



> When considering that, if Ni chooses less parts of outer stimuli to work with and Ne is more happy when bombarded with stimuli, wouldn't that actually suggest that Ni _produces_ or _expands_ more, in relation to the stimuli?


Ni does not choose "lesser parts" to work with, it has an agenda upon beginning its abstraction and instinctively knows what to work with. It does not need the same sample size as Ne.

And no, no matter how much information Ni works with, it'll condense it all and generate a single or handful of insights regarding it all, which is why I likened it to the statement "from many, one." Ne explodes the information it gets, and when you combine it with a function such as Ti you get a *framework *of ideas and logical principles. Combine it with Fi and you get a *framework *of personal values, Ne is forever *expanding* that framework of ideas, values, principles and etc.


----------



## Cosmic Hobo (Feb 7, 2013)

Ne: thinks just answering the question is boring, and wants to show off / be clever / have fun. Anyone can be right, but can they answer it like...THIS? Ta-dah! Oh, and have you thought of this? And this? And, of course, that would mean...! But, on the other hand, every premise of your question is wrong, so we can dismiss x, y, and z. Ah, but what am I arguing? Turns question upside down in penultimate paragraph! Romps home to the finishing line. Gold medal!


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

I agree with most of what's been said here.

I'd probably add that for NP's, perception seems to be an end in and of itself, our goal is to get ideas from the outside world and internalize them into a holistic understanding of how everything works together as a connected entity.

For NJ's, perception is more of a tool used to achieve other goals, which is why they have a greater affinity for the future, because they can look into an idea of their interest as its own independent entity without necessarily needing to know all the implications it has on what isn't concerned.

Ne bring from the outside, inwards through Ji
Ni brings from the inside, outwards through Je (a usually assertive, active function)

Ne is deductive
Ni is inductive
(though both types can use both kinds of logic, it's just a question of basic mode of operating)

Which is why Ne likes to keep things open ended (because you can't create an "all" theory if you stop searching) and Ni likes to draw conclusions (you can't achieve anything if you don't draw conclusions to work from).

I'll take a stupid example: an essay is due.

Ni will explore the topic in depth and conclude with a *perfect* synthesis of the mechanisms of the idea at hand.

Ne will explore the topic in depth but likely conclude with an emphasis on the place that the idea at hand holds in a bigger context.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

seiei said:


> I don't understand what you're trying to say.


I mean the Ni type could also be described as unsteady, deflectable and seeking the new but in a more contemplative way.



seiei said:


> Explain the differences between the two (or lack thereof) in your own words as clear as possible.


I fail to spot differences that can be captured by clear words. Only vague things like being adjusted to communication and action vs. being adjusted to inner contemplation. I can only speculate. In this one I described one possible idea.



seiei said:


> I was summarizing a handful of Ni/Ne descriptions based upon his work.


Based upon... here is the problem: not every part of these has a reasonable connection to Jung. And why did you want me to read Jung then? Lol. And this is my very concern in this thread or topic: I try to understand why these "converge/diverge" etc. wordings have established and if they stand to reason.



seiei said:


> Ni does not condense information as a result of being an introverted function.
> The goal of it is synthesis + definitive insight.
> Insight requires foresight, not idea spawning,
> it condenses and connects the information it works with to generate specific and clear pictures of what will be.
> With that being its game why would it take on overstimulating possibilities that derail or hinder it's abstractions?


There is no part that explains why exactly Ni is interested in synthesis and definite insight and Ne not. But okay, you later referred to that.



seiei said:


> Inward into the self, outward onto the environment.


Yea I know, but still don't understand why "from one many" would lead you onto the environment, for example. If intuitions draw many implications from little observation of the environment, how would this lead them more outward?



seiei said:


> I never implied this.
> Ni as a cognitive function will condense the information it works with, Ne will expand it.
> I was talking about those specific functions, not generalizing; external objects, quantities, and subjects.


How can the word "expand" not imply quantities. Or what you said before: from one many, from many, one. Also we always somehow refer to Jungs object and subject when we speak about extraverted and introverted functions and claim that our ideas are based on Jung.



seiei said:


> The end locations differ. Ne sprints off in every direction, Ni walks towards the center of all things.
> 
> Once again, outward vs inward.


Ah. This is new and significant to this discussion. Introverted in terms of inward in this view would not only be inward into one person (the subject) but also into the "subject" of any things. Do you see how this has a huge impact on the truth content of everything we say here? I know too little to decide which option stands more to reason, either if subject is always you and your personal sphere or can also be the core of any thing outside you, in this case. Or this way: when you look deep into something, seeing the core, you subjectify it or make it a part of you, for some reason maybe. Maybe now you see what kind of missing connections I look for.



seiei said:


> No way to test or verify this, it's all speculation. You're focusing way too much on 'data volume,' which I only really used as an example to aid in expressing my thoughts.





seiei said:


> Is that seriously what you pulled from what I typed?


Sorry for that, since you were not intentionally speaking of quantities. But I see quantitiy-related aspects in almost all cases in this thread.


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

Hurricane said:


> I agree with most of what's been said here.
> 
> I'd probably add that for NP's, perception seems to be an end in and of itself, our goal is to get ideas from the outside world and internalize them into a holistic understanding of how everything works together as a connected entity.
> 
> For NJ's, perception is more of a tool used to achieve other goals, which is why they have a greater affinity for the future, because they can look into an idea of their interest as its own independent entity without necessarily needing to know all the implications it has on what isn't concerned.


I disagree. Ni doms also have perception as an end in itself, ie there is nothing more important than perception itself.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

seiei said:


> *Ni does not condense information as a result of being an introverted function.*


Wait... *what? *Is it introverted as a result of condensing information then? Or both results of something else? So you see differences between Ne and Ni without actually connecting them to introversion and extraversion? Well however you justify that (not saying it's impossible), it explains why we talk at cross purposes. I thought everything that Ni taken by itself has not in common with Ne has something to do with its introversion.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

luemb said:


> I disagree. Ni doms also have perception as an end in itself, ie there is nothing more important than perception itself.


I'd actually thought to mention in my post that enneagrams five and nine would likely be exceptions to that haha.

But yes, I would agree that any (most) intuitives can be prone to just wanting to understand for the beauty of it, it's just a tendency I've noticed in judgers more often than perceivers, should've made that clear.

We can't make up general rules to describe 30 percent of humanity that would be preposterous :bored:


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

Hurricane said:


> I'd actually thought to mention in my post that enneagrams five and nine would likely be exceptions to that haha.
> 
> But yes, I would agree that any (most) intuitives can be prone to just wanting to understand for the beauty of it, it's just a tendency I've noticed in judgers more often than perceivers, should've made that clear.
> 
> We can't make up general rules to describe 30 percent of humanity that would be preposterous :bored:


 I now have time to flesh out my thoughts. 



> I'd probably add that for NP's, perception seems to be an end in and of itself, our goal is to get ideas from the outside world and internalize them into a holistic understanding of how everything works together as a connected entity.


How I see it:

This is Ne:


> to get ideas from the outside world


and this is your introverted judging function:


> internalize them into a holistic understanding of how everything works together as a connected entity.


How Ni works:
"To perceive ideas/thoughts through your brain that represent things as, or can see things as, whole systems/entities." (Not really seeing everything all at once, but seeing the entire scope of thought at once... ie setting the scope as the jungle and seeing the entire jungle ecosystem, but not considering all the other ecosystems in the world. And yes sometimes the scope needs to be broadened to investigate other possibilities, although sometimes I'm up against not having enough information (Se) to be able to go any broader. (I don't look to generate more ideas about the possibilities in the outside world, I want to know what is actually doable to be able to expand my model.) )

Followed by Je:
"To put into order/implement ideas or perceptions in the real world based on external logic or external values, to navigate through and use these judgements to implement ideas, OR to take one angle of a system and use it to reason through (logically or emotionally) and 'discover' or 'explain' the whole thing."


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

luemb said:


> "To perceive ideas/thoughts through your brain that represent things as, or can see things as, whole systems/entities." (Not really seeing everything all at once, but seeing the entire scope of thought at once... ie setting the scope as the jungle and seeing the entire jungle ecosystem, but not considering all the other ecosystems in the world. And yes sometimes the scope needs to be broadened to investigate other possibilities, although sometimes I'm up against not having enough information (Se) to be able to go any broader. (I don't look to generate more ideas about the possibilities in the outside world, I want to know what is actually doable to be able to expand my model.)


This is beautiful :')


----------



## ieatgingers (Nov 4, 2013)

I try to stay on topic. I do end up way off topic at the end of my answers though, and often times will have to go back and cut out the parts that aren't relevant so that it makes sense and doesn't sound like some ridiculous jumble of thought.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

"What is the meaning of life?"

Ne response: 

Meaning of life=42
Meaning of life=what does life mean?
Life is what you make it. 
What's meaning anyway?
A question that people ask to make the conversation suddenly deep. 
But what if it is really 42? No, it's actually the hokey pokey.
Must mean that the meaning of life is all a game.
Or 42....

Ni response: (something starting with a collection of their previous thoughts on the meaning of life, then perhaps some sort of revelation, and then ending with a summary of the hokey pokey metaphor)


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

My replies to open ended questions give the illusion of staying on point, thanks to the use of Te for translating my ideas, but the thought process that happens before is chaotic and non-linear, as I search different convergent links until I find the core idea that would reply to the central point of an open ended question, so getting into off topic tangets wouldn't happen, as all the possible tangents that could appear would be united to the core idea sooner or later.

For such reason is that I have problems trying to follow replies done by Ne users, as they diverge too much if they're left unchecked or their respective Ji isn't doing a good work for giving an holistic impression.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

For me, something along the lines of this video. Although it could be interpreted as Te vs. Ti as well (and there are probably hints of that).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dastan said:


> To all of you: why is that what you ascribe to Ni more introverted and that what you ascribe to Ne more extraverted?
> 
> What exactly makes distraction, expansion and lots of possibilities extraverted?!
> 
> ...


Better to view it as depth vs breadth. At the fundamental level of what introversion and extroversion are and what separates them, the introverted type will seek answers within himself, getting lost in archetype content generated by the collective consciousness, whereas the extrovert will orient their psyche towards the extroverted world and view it not as an subjective experience but something that exists objectively outside ego inference. 

This is how we understand Ne and vs Ni then, because Ne orients itself to all that could be because all that could be exists objectively. It is an object fact in a sense that we can imagine the possibility that we can turn a cat into a dog and a dog into a tree (probably bad example, I'm trying to create some similarity). Herein we also see the extroverted attitude of Ne in that Ne does not stop to explore one object from a subjective point of view that is introversion, what does this mean to me? but it goes on and keeps exploring things objectively by creating new and more tangents. Ni, being oriented towards the subjective experience, will not seek to create more options beyond the first, but Ni will try to explore this from the point of view of subjective experience, how can I understand it, what does it mean to me? 

When I get an Ni impression of something I cannot be assured someone else will experience it the same. In fact, the imaginary is so abstract that it cannot even be vocalized beyond some vague descriptors than impressions, hunches, gut feels and so on. It is of very personal nature. Ne is not personal, because all Ne thinkers can objectively experience the same possibilities they are attuned to which is why if you put a group of Ne types together, they will quickly start moving onto a lot of different subjects they see as being connected through Ne because they all objectively agree on the connective value. Ni, adding subjective value to connectivity, will seek to explore that which is the Ni type thus finds more ego-important which is not quite the same as say, personal interest. 

So if we put a bunch of Ni types together, what will happen in discussion if we assume the same starting subject that was given to the Ne group, is that they will instead try to understand this one subject in depth not by linking the extroverted world and data together, but through subjective experience which is not the same as Si here either, though Si operates similarly being Pi. 

So if we take a simple example and ask each group how to build a house, the Ne group will not even regard the house itself as overly important, being attuned to the objective experience of intuition. They might for example start looking at how different houses are built across the world from an Si perspective (I experienced such and such house) and eventually ending up at not even discussing the idea of house-building anymore but something completely off-tangent, whereas the Ni group would try to first understand what the house is. Is it made for living in, work or something else? We can also see the more singular nature of Se in that Se does operate objectively, but it does not generate possibility content. Se sees one thing and it is that, a house. It does not ascribe subjective experience to the house.



ElectricSparkle said:


> "What is the meaning of life?"
> 
> Ne response:
> 
> ...


Good job, you gave me an Ne-induced headache.

I don't mind exploring the number 42, but my immediate thoughts then go to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy since that's the origin of the meme, and I would likely be more engrossed thinking about the book/film/radio program as a result e.g. what would generate such a thought? I might for example end up thinking about Douglas Adams' possible type, British humor, whatever. 

So I mean, sure, if we look at it that way, Ni can be divergent, but what really happens is that whatever thought-patterns that occur can always be linked back to the original idea. With Ne, not so much if at all I think. At least that's how I feel. I fail to see the connection between hokey pokey and the meaning of life.


----------

