# How do YOU understand Ne and Ni?



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Curious for how YOU would define Ne and Ni.

I wrote this blog post on Ne: Ne. What is it? - Blogs - PersonalityCafe but Ni is a bit trickier for me, being foreign to my stacking of course.

What say you PerC people


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

Intuition is the function that perceives information primarily on an abstract level. This is beneficial in that it leads to deeper insights, but it is inferior in that could lead to missing details or forgetting practical matters.

Introversion is the attitude of depth and subjective, internal experience. Extroversion is the attitude of breadth and objective, external experience.

*Assuming all functions are inherently conscious*

Thus Ne is the cognitive function that takes a large variety of abstract data and hands it over to the judging function for analysis. Ne needs constant stimulation in the department of information because of its requirement for breadth. A dominant Ne will need to fall back on their auxiliary introverted function when they need to focus. Ne also tends to deal with what it sees as objective data. Sometimes the ideas of objective data and concrete data are conflated leading to misunderstandings about the nature of N and S. Because Ne is extraverted, it is more likely to ask about the standards with which data was retrieved, but because it is Intuiting, is is more likely to not want to deal with physical experiments (they're more likely to use soft science type model-based experiments).

Ni then is the cognitive function that takes a large amount of abstract data on one topic and hands it over to the judging function for analysis. Whereas Ne takes a lot of different types of information and finds relationships between them, Ni takes one type of information and explores it until it can no longer. Ni is inherently more focused than Ne, but it more easily gets caught using paradigms or the same schemas and stereotypes repeatedly. When a dominant Ni needs to look at things from new perspectives, they must fall back on their auxiliary extraverted function.

*Assuming some functions are unconscious*

Note that my impressions of the unconscious come from the Unconscious Thought Theory, a relatively new and controversial theory within cognitive psychology. Despite its controversial nature, most academic peer reviewed studies I have found on it agree with the basic tenets of UTT or have a null hypothesis.

Ne is the conscious manifestation of N. It deals with data by consciously exploring it. Because the conscious has less capacity to focus than the unconscious (the conscious attention span is dealt with in a matter of minutes; incubation shows us that is possible for the unconscious to deal with attention in a matter of unknown length, but longer than minutes), the conscious manifestation of N tends to look at a large variety of information. This would seem to make them better at judgments, but the conscious manifestation of N has been shown to rely more heavily on schemas and stereotypes than the unconscious form. Because of this, unless they are primed to take an egalitarian view, they will have biases based on pre-existing schemas.

Ni is the unconscious manifestation of N. It is ridiculously overpowered in terms of unconscious thought theory, which is why I reject the notion that Ni is the unconscious function. It's like Ne, dealing with the abstract, but has a number of advantages (unconscious thought theory posits that the unconscious is better at decision making than the conscious). Ni has the ability to hold more information than Ne. Ni disregards schemas and stereotypes, viewing each situation as completely unique and individual. Because of this, Ni can better weigh information without pre-existing biases getting in the way. Ni is less hierarchical in its thought processes than Ne and because of this doesn't get locked into "bad" tendencies. Finally, it gets the phenomenon of incubation.

*I reject the principle that Ni is fundamentally unconscious.*


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Purge the Mind said:


> Good material.


Mr. Purge, what role do you think Si plays in 'fertilizing' Ne-dom perspective (assuming you believe this) and likewise Se to Ni?


----------



## Metal Fish (Jan 3, 2014)

I always think of it like this

Ne/Se perceives many things and has one judgment about them, Ti/Fi

Ni/Si perceives one thing and has many judgments about it, Te/Fe

It's like having a ring of cameras. J/P determines if the cameras are facing inward (J) or outward (P), and E/I determines if there is more emphasis on what's happening outside of the ring (E), or inside of the ring (I). 

That's my general understanding of it, i might be wrong though.


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Metal Fish said:


> I always think of it like this
> 
> Ne/Se perceives many things and has one judgment about them, Ti/Fi
> 
> ...


I agree with this, especially the first two


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Purge the Mind said:


> Intuition is the function that perceives information primarily on an abstract level. This is beneficial in that it leads to deeper insights, but it is inferior in that could lead to missing details or forgetting practical matters.
> 
> Introversion is the attitude of depth and subjective, internal experience. Extroversion is the attitude of breadth and objective, external experience.
> 
> ...


How would this relate to the introverted judging functions


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

absyrd said:


> Mr. Purge, what role do you think Si plays in 'fertilizing' Ne-dom perspective (assuming you believe this) and likewise Se to Ni?


I should state foremost that my perspective on the cognitive functions is much different than most people's. I've tried to adapt the model to what I've learned about psychology through extensive reading.

*Ne*
1. Abstract
2. Breadth over Depth
3. Objective measures
4. Limited use of mental hierarchy (schemas would be one example of this)

*Si*
1. Concrete
2. Depth over Breadth
3. Subjective measures
4. Extensive use of mental hierarchy

*Ne doms with integrated Si*
1. Abstract->Concrete: Grounding in reality
2. Breadth->Depth: Focus on topics
3. Objective->Subjective: Can draw from internal sources of ideas
4. Limited Hierarchy->Extensive Hierarchy: Structure to ideas, consistency in thought

*Si doms with integrated Ne*
1. Concrete->Abstract: More apt to look at broader meaning of ideas
2. Depth->Breadth: Taking in more perspectives
3. Subjective->Objective: More apt to look to outside sources for knowledge
4. More Hierarchy->Less Hierarchy: Less likely to get locked down into one way of thinking

Ni is the same as Si but #1 is changed to concrete. Se is the same as Ne but #1 is changed to abstract. The two perceiving axes have similar relations.


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

I'm not sure what your asking. Are you asking how my conceptions of the extroverted perceiving functions relate to introverted judging functions?


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Purge the Mind said:


> I'm not sure what your asking. Are you asking how my conceptions of the extroverted perceiving functions relate to introverted judging functions?


Well introverted judging functions aren't in constant use with introverted perceiving functions... Are you saying to an Ne user their judgements take place in their subconscious


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Unless they are in a dominant-tertiary loop


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

Arceus301 said:


> Well introverted judging functions aren't in constant use with introverted perceiving functions... Are you saying to an Ne user their judgements take place in their subconscious


No. I don't think any function is inherently unconscious or conscious; I think each function has both conscious and unconscious operations. For example, the fact that we automatically mirror others' facial expressions and mannerisms would be an unconscious aspect of Fe, but much of Fe is a conscious operation.

I _think_ I answered your question.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Purge the Mind said:


> I'm not sure what your asking. Are you asking how my conceptions of the extroverted perceiving functions relate to introverted judging functions?


The way I understand it is, Si is fuel for Ne. Si works by knowing what tangible changes are working in the environment and is focused on the process of stuff. Ne explores what it sees as part of a process. It examines the process and sees different ways to LEAD it. So Ne literally "bounces" off of Si. Ne is stimulated when the user understands the entire process leading up to a certain point. So whatever process Ne perceives from Si is what is used to create possibilities for where the process can lead to. Thus why Socionics duality aka "best-type-pairing" is your opposite type, because they are your opposite meaning your cognitive functions reversed. A person who can stimulate your functions and vice versa with ease.

Si fuels Ne and vice versa.
Se fuels Ni and vice versa.
Te fuels Fi and vice versa.
Ti fuels Fe and vice versa.

I think best understanding of the functions comes when you understand how its complementary function guides it.


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

absyrd said:


> The way I understand it is, Si is fuel for Ne. Si works by knowing what tangible changes are working in the environment and is focused on the process of stuff. Ne explores what it sees as part of a process. It examines the process and sees different ways to LEAD it. So Ne literally "bounces" off of Si. Ne is stimulated when the user understands the entire process leading up to a certain point. So whatever process Ne perceives from Si is what is used to create possibilities for where the process can lead to. Thus why Socionics duality aka "best-type-pairing" is your opposite type, because they are your opposite meaning your cognitive functions reversed. A person who can stimulate your functions and vice versa with ease.
> 
> Si fuels Ne and vice versa.
> Se fuels Ni and vice versa.
> ...


It won't let me post a link because I don't have enough posts, but google "Brain Can't Empathize And Analyze At Same Time, New Study". Ti cannot be fueled by Fe (and vice versa) and Te cannot be fueled by Fi (and vice versa).


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Purge the Mind said:


> It won't let me post a link because I don't have enough posts, but google "Brain Can't Empathize And Analyze At Same Time, New Study". Ti cannot be fueled by Fe (and vice versa) and Te cannot be fueled by Fi (and vice versa).


F as a function doesn't necessitate empathy.

Anyway, you'll find most of what I preach about functions derive from Socionics Model A and Socionics Functions


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

absyrd said:


> F as a function doesn't necessitate empathy....


I'm well aware of socionics theory. That's all it is though. There are no peer reviewed studies on socionics that I know of. It doesn't even bother looking to scientific research to find support for its claims. 

It should be noted in my original statement I said nothing about functions being unable to interact with their opposite. Later in the thread I suggested how S functions and N functions could integrate. I'm not really sure what you're debating because I don't see a disagreement (except for over F and T).


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Purge the Mind said:


> I'm well aware of socionics theory. That's all it is though. There are no peer reviewed studies on socionics that I know of. It doesn't even bother looking to scientific research to find support for its claims.
> 
> It should be noted in my original statement I said nothing about functions being unable to interact with their opposite. Later in the thread I suggested how S functions and N functions could integrate. I'm not really sure what you're debating because I don't see a disagreement (except for over F and T).


I'd say Socionics is as close to perfection you'll get when integrating Psychological Types to other theories of psychology and sociology. It is indeed totally theoretical, like the basis of MBTI itself. Lack of peer-reviewed studies are likely due to the fact that it doesn't necessarily make claims about people but rather expands on the types as they would function given the definition of their most basic processes. I haven't really found anything that goes quite to the depth and therefore application of Socionics theory.


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

absyrd said:


> I'd say Socionics is as close to perfection you'll get when integrating Psychological Types to other theories of psychology and sociology. It is indeed totally theoretical, like the basis of MBTI itself. Lack of peer-reviewed studies are likely due to the fact that it doesn't necessarily make claims about people but rather expands on the types as they would function given the definition of their most basic processes. I haven't really found anything that goes quite to the depth and therefore application of Socionics theory.


Ok. I just want to say that I'm trying to keep this at a friendly debate level, and I know that some times I can come off (especially on the internet) as abrasively confrontational in debate, so if that's happening I apologize.

I must ask, however, how socionics has integrated modern psychological research, because I honestly don't see it.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Purge the Mind said:


> Ok. I just want to say that I'm trying to keep this at a friendly debate level, and I know that some times I can come off (especially on the internet) as abrasively confrontational in debate, so if that's happening I apologize.
> 
> I must ask, however, how socionics has integrated modern psychological research, because I honestly don't see it.


No worries. I respond to the text not the attitude, not that I picked up any from your end.

Socionics is based on Jung's Psychological Types merged primarily with Kepinski's Information Metabolism theory (Kepi), but perhaps nothing modern like you would prefer.

To back up the earlier statement regarding formation of Socionics as a logical expansion of Psych Types: "Socionics also differs from other typologies in that it also includes a complementary Base-16 relationship set, with the intent of penning to paper the key social dynamic traits between grouped combinations of socionic types. Therefore, socionics could be considered to be within the realm of the science of social dynamics, intended to describe social behavior according to mathematical applications of Base-16, group theory, set logic, and reduction of the Gulenko-Jungian notation for socionics types to hexadecimal and Base-2 bitwise operation."

Using this process is I think more indicative of Socionics being a "mathematically based" expansion of Jung's text. MBTI has a tendency to open up holes and gaps where Socionics works from the ground up without any diversion in structure. An example of this: where the hell did MBTI's definition of Introverted Sensing come from? Certainly not from the original text. In dismissing Socionics I'd be interested in examples where its theory is not impartial to the source it expands on.


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

absyrd said:


> No worries. I respond to the text not the attitude, not that I picked up any from your end...


Mathematical and logical structure is nice. Especially as an INTP I can appreciate it; but without it any evidence to support its claims I don't see it as optimal. The attitude I'm seeing here is, "Well socionics is the best we have so I'll settle for it." Personally, given that socionics isn't that great, in my opinion, I must disagree with this attitude. I have the same issue with MBTI so I'm not partial to MBTI in any way. I think we need an entirely new model with the same premises (i.e. the functions), but taking into account the ocean of psychological research that comes out every year.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Purge the Mind said:


> Mathematical and logical structure is nice. Especially as an INTP I can appreciate it; but without it any evidence to support its claims I don't see it as optimal. The attitude I'm seeing here is, "Well socionics is the best we have so I'll settle for it." Personally, given that socionics isn't that great, in my opinion, I must disagree with this attitude. I have the same issue with MBTI so I'm not partial to MBTI in any way. I think we need an entirely new model with the same premises (i.e. the functions), but taking into account the ocean of psychological research that comes out every year.


I do have one question: other than the lack of peer-reviewed research (this subject is actually a topic of heavy discussion during annual Socionics meetings in Russia), is there anything you disagree with regarding its theories based on how you've personally conceptualized things using modern psychological research?


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

absyrd said:


> I do have one question: other than the lack of peer-reviewed research (this subject is actually a topic of heavy discussion during annual Socionics meetings in Russia), is there anything you disagree with regarding its theories based on how you've personally conceptualized things using modern psychological research?


I think most models have _something_ to contribute, so I don't really disagree with it, I just don't think it's optimal. I will say this: I like its premise. I like that it looks less at how we take in information and process it and looks more at actual behaviors and cognitions. I like that it started out more organized than MBTI. Honestly if it got off to the nice organized start it did and then started looking to see what was going on the psychological world, I'd probably love it.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

I like your post so I'll help you out with some things that you certainly got wrong. (This might seem offensive, but understand that this is my way of helping you out. I can appear to be a jerk but I'm doing so only to clash my understanding against yours and see what comes out, for a better understanding.)



Purge the Mind said:


> Ni then is the cognitive function that takes a large amount of abstract data on one topic and hands it over to the judging function for analysis.


This is wrong, you already understand that Ni is a percieving function and because of that, it doesn't judge. The only functions that judge on a subjective level are Fi and Ti.

Let's look at an INFJ for what the extraverted judging function does. Ni percieves and does the analysis, Ni comes up with an idea (usually a solution to a problem) and the extraverted judging function is used to implement the idea. An INFJ uses Fe to implement what Ni comes up with, Adolf Hitler (INFJ) is a good example. Germany had a problem, Ni did the analysis and came up with the solution. After that Adolf used Fe to implement his solution, he rallied up a lot of people and forced them in 1 direction with a 'you're either with us or against us' mentality. In his case, Fe did no analysis, it is Ni that focussed on the problem and came up with the solution, after that Fe was only used to implement what Ni came up with.

In reverse, we can look at somebody who I believe is an INTP, Albert Einstein. He used Ti-Ne, first he used Ti to analyse phenomenons, but the extraverted function Ne was used to explain the unexplained. The entire process of analysis was done on a subjective basis, but when he went on to explain it he used Ne, as you can see in this video. 



. Look at statements like (like a trampoline, like a drippel in a pond, etc.) they are all done through Ne after being processed by Ti.

So in conclusion, both Ne and Ni are percieving functions but Ni does the analysis. I personally believe that all introverted functions are more powerful than their extraverted counterparts when it comes to understanding and analysing, but the extraverted functions are used to explain and relate to others what the introverted functions have come up with. For this reason, it is no wonder that the best rapper of the world (in my humbe opinion) is Eminem, an ISFP. He uses Fi to channel his emotions but he exerts it through Se, that is why his songs feel so incredibly powerful. His emotions run deep on a subjective level but they come out through his 5 senses, and one of them is his voice which he used to make his songs with.

I've gone a bit offtrack here, but in conclusion: Ni is used to observe and analyse, the extraverted function Te/Fe is used to implement Ni.



Purge the Mind said:


> Whereas Ne takes a lot of different types of information and finds relationships between them, Ni takes one type of information and explores it until it can no longer.


This is wrong, I'm not sure what to make of it because the words 'one type of information' is not specific enough for me to break it apart, it could mean anything. 

But to add on this: Ni takes in Se data, no Te/Fe/Si/Ne/Fi/Ti data is used for Ni. Ni uses everything from Se, and this can be very hard for an INTP to understand because of a very different reason. And not because you're stupid, INTP's are hella smart. It is because Se is the blind spot for INTP's, just like how ENFP's and ESFP's are completely blind to Ti. (If you've ever tried to explain a Ti related subjected to an ENFP or ESFP you will instantly know I'm talking about, if not, let me know and I can elaborate.)



Purge the Mind said:


> Ni is inherently more focused than Ne


True in the sense that Ni is introverted and Ne is extraverted, Ti, Si and Fi are also a lot more foccused than Te, Se and Fe are. For example: Do not ask a dominant Te user to explain an unexplained phenomenon, it lacks focus and depth. Ask a dominant Ti user to do such a thing because it can analyse logically with focus and depth.



Purge the Mind said:


> Ni is inherently more focused than Ne, but it more easily gets caught using paradigms or the same schemas and stereotypes repeatedly.


Not true, because in order to use paradigms, schema's and stereotypes repeatedly you would have to recall them constantly, and Si is used to recall data but for an INTJ and INFJ Si is the last(according to Socionics ignoring) function. 1:Ni 2:x 3:x 4:Se - 5:Ne 6:x 7:x 8:Si.



Purge the Mind said:


> When a dominant Ni needs to look at things from new perspectives, they must fall back on their auxiliary extraverted function.


False, when Ni needs to look at things from a new perspective they need to actually experience the world through Se. That is why ESFP's are so incredibely good for INTJ's. This is also why INTJ's are called scientists because they are out in the world, exploring caves, vulcano's and jungles. They do not sit inside all day but they gain a new perspective by experiencing the world through the 5 senses. When Ni gets stuck it needs more Se, not Te or Fe.



Purge the Mind said:


> Ni is the unconscious manifestation of N. It is ridiculously overpowered in terms of unconscious thought theory, which is why I reject the notion that Ni is the unconscious function.


Don't get this wrong but what I'm reading here is that you reject the idea of Ni being unconscious, not on a logical level but on an emotional level, you reject it because if it did work on an unconscious level it would be overpowered.

I can give you a new perspective on this, something you can observe in people very easily, every introverted function is OP as hell when it it's used in the first slot. Ti, Fi and Si are rediculous. Almost all the best singers in the world are Fi by default, almost all the greatest scientists and philosophers are Ti by default, Ni comes second. (I'm not counting Socrates, Plato and Aristoteles here because well known =/= great.) Pretty much all the best accountants in the world are ISTJ's, Si dominants.

Don't reject something because it would be overpowered, only reject something because it simply isn't true.

Ni also takes a long time to process information, it is a very slow function compared to Ne which can brainstorm pretty much instantly and can come up with different idea's and scenario's very rapidly. 



Purge the Mind said:


> It's like Ne, dealing with the abstract, but has a number of advantages (unconscious thought theory posits that the unconscious is better at decision making than the conscious).


It is better, just like how Ti, Fi and Si are better than Te, Fe and Se if you want depth.



Purge the Mind said:


> Ni has the ability to hold more information than Ne.


I think that you're missing something here. Ni works through Se but Ne works through Si. Of course Ni can hold more information but that is simply because Si can do the same. This is also why comparing Ni to Ne is very unfair and will almost always result in Ni coming out on top. Don't compare Ni to Ne and expect a fair result, it won't happen.

In fact, if you battle Ni vs Si I would bet that Si can hold a lot more information than Ni can. As I said before, INTJ's and INFJ's have Si as their 8th function, they use Ni Te/Fe Fi/Ti Se. They have no Si like all the Ne users do, so what function should store information for them? It is Ni that should. So if you're saying that Ne can 'store' as much as Ni can than you're actually putting Ne above Ni because Ne users also use Si in addition to Ne, and we all know that Si is the store monster of information when it comes to cognitive functions.



Purge the Mind said:


> Ni disregards schemas and stereotypes


Ni uses Se, so it should be obvious by know that Ni doesn't use schemas and stereotypes to begin with. It is actually a Ti-Ne process to come up with such things to begin with, nothing to do with Ni-Te or Ni-Fe.



Purge the Mind said:


> Ni disregards schemas and stereotypes, viewing each situation as completely unique and individual.


Ni does create a new situation each time, again and again, just like how Si remembers a completely unique and individual situation. Remember to compare Ni to Si and not to Ne, because Ne uses existing material for comparison. Si (just like Ni) doesn't. 

As I've said earlier, Ni works very slowly, comparing Ni to Ti, Ti is like a processor and can proces information very fast. But Ni is like a video card, Ni builds everything from the ground up again and again, this is why it requires focus but also why Ni uses concrete data (from Se.) Ni users have a tremendous storage for Se data because it uses Se to come up with a visual presentation of reality.

This is also why Ni requires more Se data to gain new perspectives, because it uses Se to build it's concepts, idea's and to come up with a visual presentation inside the brain.



Purge the Mind said:


> Ni can better weigh information without pre-existing biases getting in the way. Ni is less hierarchical in its thought processes than Ne and because of this doesn't get locked into "bad" tendencies. Finally, it gets the phenomenon of incubation.


Ni doesn't weigh information, Ni doesn't judge, it only percieves. Ni gets locked in plenty of "bad" tendencies but none that compare to Ne because Ni doesn't function like Ne at all, it functions like Si.



Purge the Mind said:


> *I reject the principle that Ni is fundamentally unconscious.*


I do to, I think that all the 8 functions fundamentally function from our conscious, but also that all 8 functions use unconscious processes in order to function properly.


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

Dedication said:


> I like your post so I'll help you out with some things that you certainly got wrong...


I'm not quoting all of that. I don't have any contentions with your post. I'd like to thank you because you just made me realize that the Ni-Se and Ne-Si axes can be used in comparison and the Ns and Ss don't have to be just compared side by side.

About your last comment about using unconscious processes. I envision the eight function as halfway conscious and halfway unconscious. Currently the model I'm trying to develop defines each function by two conscious and two unconscious traits (one behavioral and one cognitive for each) (I'm going for a somewhat reductionistic model).


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Dedication said:


> I like your post so I'll help you out with some things that you certainly got wrong. (This might seem offensive, but understand that this is my way of helping you out. I can appear to be a jerk but I'm doing so only to clash my understanding against yours and see what comes out, for a better understanding.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're both wrong in a way, yes judging functions cannot provide information in the same way that perceiving can, and yes perceiving functions cannot analyze information.

But you need to look at the dynamic of feedback. Perceiving function pulls in information, judging function judges it. Now, what is the result of a judging function? It is information, just like what the perceiving function initially provided. So, you get stuck. You say: Not enough info. Then you go and look for more information, you feed it through Ti which already has the other judgement ready to go, and judges it in respect to the new outside information, and judges the old information in respect to the new. Thus a new judgement is formed, this goes on til you die.

That is how Ni and Te would work also. 

Now more questions about the quality of the information each function brings in, and if having dominant Ne implies "purer to the concept" information than auxiliary Ne: does this imply that one is better than the other in what it does, or is there a more variable spread of information a perception function is capable of producing, and auxiliary is not necessarily inferior, just different?

Also, do the two end up being exactly like each other via this feedback, that Ni's depth is compensated by breadth of the final product, and Ne's breadth is compensated by the depth of the final product?

I have a problem with saying Te/Fe implements Ni. Does this imply Ti implements Ne, but it can only do it inwardly, therefore causing the INTP to revert to Fe if they need to implement a judgement, and transforming them into something with completely different priorities? Or is implementation something common to us all? After all, we do not live in ivory towers, we must interact with the environment constantly, and you don't see people saying things like ISTP's are incapable of implementing things in their environment, to the contrary, they are seen to be primed for this.

Another objection to this is that it misses the point of placing both introverted and extraverted functions under the same label. Introverted thinking is extraverted thinking, with a different quality. Their essential nature does not differ: one is not implementation and the other is not internal building, only. They must be more of a complete package, or you create straw men to be plucked down by the wind.


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Purge the Mind said:


> Mathematical and logical structure is nice. Especially as an INTP I can appreciate it; but without it any evidence to support its claims I don't see it as optimal. The attitude I'm seeing here is, "Well socionics is the best we have so I'll settle for it." Personally, given that socionics isn't that great, in my opinion, I must disagree with this attitude. I have the same issue with MBTI so I'm not partial to MBTI in any way. I think we need an entirely new model with the same premises (i.e. the functions), but taking into account the ocean of psychological research that comes out every year.


Then others would deny your theory just as you are denying socionics, you're digging your own grave, plus there would be no stronghold to base it, the theory would need to be all encompassing


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Although I did not start this thread, I really appreciate it and will need to process the information before I can give a proper response but.... Awesome


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

absyrd said:


> Curious for how YOU would define Ne and Ni.
> 
> I wrote this blog post on Ne: Ne. What is it? - Blogs - PersonalityCafe but Ni is a bit trickier for me, being foreign to my stacking of course.
> 
> What say you PerC people


I don't, because they aren't real things.

Intuition is intuition. Humans have intuition. Some are better than others.

The evidence for introverted/extroverted forms is literally nil.


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

But @Dedication theory is good with balancing itself (due to it being very easy for it so topple over and favor Ni) @tangosthenes explain yourself by defining Ti and Te as the same... What kind of world are you living in... Like yes but NOOO, there's a whole thing on the ENTP on how we HATE Te (no offense @Dedication)


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

Arceus301 said:


> Then others would deny your theory just as you are denying socionics, you're digging your own grave, plus there would be no stronghold to base it, the theory would need to be all encompassing


Why? How could they deny it if I found psychological data to back it up? Unless they're one of those idiots who thinks psychology is a pseudoscience.


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

Kevinaswell said:


> I don't, because they aren't real things.
> 
> Intuition is intuition. Humans have intuition. Some are better than others.
> 
> The evidence for introverted/extroverted forms is literally nil.


I think you're missing the point. It's working from a model. The idea that any abstraction exists is nonexistent but they are constructs that do help us better understand the world.


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Purge the Mind said:


> Why? How could they deny it if I found psychological data to back it up? Unless they're one of those idiots who thinks psychology is a pseudoscience.


You could prove anything, it doesn't mean it's "real", socionics can technically have evidence to support it, but if people don't believe it, it is "true?" to you it isn't... To you, your theory you created could have just as much evidence to support it as Kepi's theory, that doesn't mean people would believe it. Sadly, the only things that are "real" are the things that are proven by public opinion, people find different values in evidence, they may not see the objective value in what you have "uncovered"


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Purge the Mind said:


> I think you're missing the point. It's working from a model. The idea that any abstraction exists is nonexistent but they are constructs that do help us better understand the world.


Nah I'm not missing the point at all, this was my major and even after school remain up to date on personality research.

The model it's working from is flawed, and irrelevant. Unless you just need something to cling on to as a person. But that is the same appeal horoscopes have. 

Constructs may help people understand the world, but they don't tell them any truth about it until it's proven. I'm a man of truth.



Arceus301 said:


> You could prove anything, it doesn't mean it's "real", socionics can technically have evidence to support it, but if people don't believe it, is it "true" to you it isn't... To you, you're theory you created could have just as much evidence to support it as Jung's theory, that doesn't mean people would believe it. Sadly, the only things that are "real" are the things that are proven by public opinion, people find different values in evidence, they may not see the objective value in what you have "uncovered"


To a scientist, this is one huge facepalm and bout of vomiting.


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

@Kevinaswell define what you mean by "huge face palm" "bout of vomiting"


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Arceus301 said:


> @_Kevinaswell_ define what you mean by "huge face palm" "bout of vomiting"


face·palm
ˈfāspä(l)m/
_noun_


*1*.
a gesture in which the palm of one's hand is brought to one's face, as an expression of disbelief, shame, or exasperation.

"huge" being used as a modifier to suggest the vast amount.

vom·it
ˈvämət/
_verb_
gerund or present participle: *vomiting*


*1*.
eject matter from the stomach through the mouth.


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

Arceus301 said:


> You could prove anything, it doesn't mean it's "real", socionics can technically have evidence to support it, but if people don't believe it, it is "true?" to you it isn't... To you, your theory you created could have just as much evidence to support it as Kepi's theory, that doesn't mean people would believe it. Sadly, the only things that are "real" are the things that are proven by public opinion, people find different values in evidence, they may not see the objective value in what you have "uncovered"


I'd rather do it anyway. Even if nobody agrees or whatever, unless someone can prove me wrong, I'd rather have an evidentially based theory, even if its just for me.


----------



## Purge the Mind (Feb 23, 2014)

Kevinaswell said:


> Nah I'm not missing the point at all, this was my major and even after school remain up to date on personality research.
> 
> The model it's working from is flawed, and irrelevant. Unless you just need something to cling on to as a person. But that is the same appeal horoscopes have.
> 
> Constructs may help people understand the world, but they don't tell them any truth about it until it's proven. I'm a man of truth..


Alright. Can you show me what about the model is flawed, or point me to a source that can?


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Kevinaswell said:


> face·palm
> ˈfāspä(l)m/
> _noun_
> 
> ...


Hmmm, and to think I mistook you for an INTP, sorry, I think you might want to check out the ISTJ camp, they're really good at stating the obvious


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Purge the Mind said:


> I'd rather do it anyway. Even if nobody agrees or whatever, unless someone can prove me wrong, I'd rather have an evidentially based theory, even if its just for me.


I respect that


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Arceus301 said:


> Hmmm, and to think I mistook you for an INTP, sorry, I think you might want to check out the ISTJ camp, they're really good at stating the obvious


And they try so hard to, Hmph, how long did it take you to look that up?


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Purge the Mind said:


> Alright. Can you show me what about the model is flawed, or point me to a source that can?


The MBTI model? Or enneagram? They're both flawed in the same way really. 

In the world of science, they don't provide genuine predictions. Science is all about predictions. Putting people within 1 out of 16 boxes doesn't enable accurate predictions. 

The human brain, not to mention cultural social structure, is way too complicated to be summarized within the factors that MBTI evaluates. It's incomplete, unreliable, and ultimately just a source of self validation.


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Ni finds the solution to Ne possibilities


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

And Ni works WAYYY slower than Ne does, just ask an Ne dom and an Ni dom to list the solution to a crisis, time them, and count how many each has on a piece of paper (Ne would win) then see which of them are more efficient (Ni would win) (don't put too much thought into it, I just made this up)


----------



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

Arceus301 said:


> And Ni works WAYYY slower than Ne does, just ask an Ne dom and an Ni dom to list the solution to a crisis, time them, and count how many each has on a piece of paper (Ne would win) then see which of them are more efficient (Ni would win) (don't put too much thought into it, I just made this up)


I don't think either of them are faster or slower. It really depends on what other functions the Ni and Ne users have as their main 3. Personal learning and expressing styles are important here too. Writing down ideas on paper takes longer than just saying things most of the time for me but I know another person who is the opposite and we think in a similar way.

I am starting to think I am an Ni user. I would start looking at how the system doesn't work and why a crisis happened.I would just rework and rebalance system from the ground up in order to solve the crisis rather than do anything else. Probably use the situation as an excuse to fix other issues I saw in the system. Example: "Oh hey there are more and more kids becoming fatter, people make decisions that aren't grounded in reasoning because of poor education so lets revamp the entirety of the education system and also educate parents as much as the kids in order to fix it"


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

_On the conscious level:_

*Ni* - shifting perspectives of one idea
*Ne* - generates new ideas


----------



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> _On the conscious level:_
> 
> *Ni* - shifting perspectives of one idea
> *Ne* - generates new ideas


Expanding on this, the possibilities of why it doesn't work compared to what possibilities could arise from it working.


----------



## cindennrella (Jun 10, 2012)

I'm no expert, but I don't agree with the idea that Ne starts with Si information and Ni starts with Se information. Both Ne and Ni are perceiving functions so they should explain by themselves how they perceive the world, right? The way I see it, Ne would start at the object itself, not the subjective impression released by the object (Si). I'm not saying Ne and Si can't work in tandem, but _at least_ that shouldn't always be the case. Same with Ni and Se.
So Ne sees and pays attention to the "meaning" of the external object while Ni pays attention to the "meaning" of the subjective impression released by the external object. That's how I understand them, feel free to correct me.




CynicalGiant said:


> I am starting to think I am an Ni user. I would start looking at how the system doesn't work and why a crisis happened.I would just rework and rebalance system from the ground up in order to solve the crisis rather than do anything else. Probably use the situation as an excuse to fix other issues I saw in the system. Example: "Oh hey there are more and more kids becoming fatter, people make decisions that aren't grounded in reasoning because of poor education so lets revamp the entirety of the education system and also educate parents as much as the kids in order to fix it"


Wouldn't that be the work of a rational function instead of a perceiving one?


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

Kevinaswell said:


> That's the point, though...the "specific functions" are completely arbitrary. They were invented. They aren't real. They don't exist in observational science.
> 
> The only way to believe in them is to invoke the belief in absurdity. Fascinating or not.


What an absurdly closed-minded post.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Ne: One into many

Ni: Many into one

Something like that


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

Ne is Cocaine, Ni is Heroin


----------



## WildChild (Jul 9, 2013)

absyrd said:


> What an absurdly closed-minded post.


Not necessarily, I too doubt the existence of "functions" as such, although I believe different people experience cognition differently. Thing is, people have completely different experiences of functions according to their rank, as such, Ne dom is a different function than Ne aux, and so on. Idk, the whole 8 function model probably has some truth to it, but it's probably much more complicated in reality

On topic:
I think Ni is more tangible as far as cognitive experience goes compared to Ne. I believe I'm an Ne dom, and I don't even truly realise extraverted intuition. I just naturally "see" things, patterns, ways to go, but I don't randomly come up with them. Ne derives off past experience, it's "subconsciously aware" of past experiences and finds solutions according to what will work in the given situation. I'll make a decision and then realise why I made that decision and why it made sense compared to the alternative.
On the other hand, Ni does this process consciously, it probably sounds like "this leads to this & that to that, so I should chose x rather than y" - imagine thinking this super fast - that's my view of Ni.

I believe the main difference between Ni and Ne is that Ne is traditionally associated with curiosity, this might be a byproduct of function stack though. 

I mean really, all those cognitive processes/stacks derive from brain structure and neurotransmitters, thus it's really hard to hypothesize on the matter. OK i'll stop now, I could go on for a lot longer but obligations are calling


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Well, it _is _true that cognitive functions are theoretical, largely linguistic constructs. The idea of a cognitive function wasn't really intended to cover a specific mental process that occurs for all people of a given Jungian type, and we abuse that terribly on PerC. 

That said:

Ni is a function of abstract form as it is developed over a span of time. It is an ever-growing drawer full of "archetypal cookie cutters" of sorts that the Ni type develops as they realize that one experience abstractly resembles another one from the past, and may also resemble something upcoming. This is what gives it a "predictive" quality, and as you can see, the Ni type isn't really "predicting" anything. They're simply looking for homologies between things they experience - what is perceivably shared in common by X and Y becomes its own micro cookie cutter, Z, which is - bingo - the "can't describe why but it is" quality, or "deeper insight" I had about something in the present. The Ni dominant, in particular, wants to congeal all of these micro-observations into one.

To be honest, I don't spend a lot of time in some superhuman cognitive mode as Ni is described - but I do find myself wanting to know what the "real" fundamental behind something is, and spending a lot of time trying to find out what "drives" certain processes - even if that's just understanding why my computer isn't starting. Instead of just fixing the problem in an efficient way and moving on, I want to see if my hunch as to what the problem is (which "looks" in form like another one I had) works.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

absyrd said:


> What an absurdly closed-minded post.


Prove it.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

http://archonic.net/ia00V03.pdf

Idea = unity of presences 
Noematic Nucleus = totality of presences 

Essence = unity of absences = constraints 
Archetype = totality of absences = sources 

The first two are any number of projections that can characterize or transform the that which is present. The last two is the unique mapping that discerns the that which is present from what it is not.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@AlliG has the perfect description in her signature and its exactly how I understand Ni & Ne:


----------



## TuesdaysChild (Jan 11, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> @AlliG has the perfect description in her signature and its exactly how I understand Ni & Ne:


----------

