# Real-life examples of Ne and Ni?



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

I understand that Ne "gathers" abstract ideas and possibilities spontaneously, while Ni "organizes" abstract ideas and possibilities and is therefore more focused and orderly than Ne. But what exactly does it mean to "gather" or "organize" abstract ideas?
What are some examples of how these look like in real life?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I don't know about Ne, but I know this is from DSP, so here's DSP on 'organizing' Ni:



> Somebody that's organizing intuition is like, somebody that's working at a business and will figure out 'this is how the burgers work at McDonalds, you got the orders come in, the processes that go out, it gets the vibe of the steps of how the burgers go "oh it goes from A to B to C to D" and it's this whole little process - and then it'll take that pattern and grab onto it, organize it, then look at the Toyota company and say "I see the same pattern" then it'll look at Home Depot and go "I see the same pattern" - so they're walking around with this manufacturing pattern or whatever it is that they're observing and they've kinda distilled it down and they've got it from one place, and they see it another, and see it in another - they're sorta walking around with this pattern and then when they get into trouble, they'll project it onto somebody else and Burger King is like "oh, no, we have a different system" and Ni is like "no, I see the same pattern".
> 
> So Ni is walking around with these pre-realized, pre-organized, pre-thought out patterns, and then trying to get stuff to fit into that - and the more Sensory you can fit into the same pattern, the better for Ni, and it doesn't like more patterns - doesn't like Ne - sure as hell doesn't like Sensory.
> 
> ...



It's not really 'organizing', as you might think of the term - it's more like it 'organizes' the information it's going to kick off to your decider/judging functions, which actually 'do' something with the information.

Ni, Si, Se and Ne just perceive - that's it.
So as far as 'organizing', imo, you could almost look at the idea as being a 'filter'.

In that, you can envision Si as doing the same thing, fucktonne of external real-world facts and information out there, but Si 'organizes' it, or, filters it (in some kind of order) and then the deciders do things with the information.

So 'organizing' works on a conceptual level but if people take the term too 'personality theoried' (insofar as what it means currently in the personality world, i.e J), they'll wind up posting in here and trying to say "ORGANIZING IS TE TI FI OR FE U DUM DUM" completely failing to comprehend the concept.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

MD_analyst said:


> I understand that Ne "gathers" abstract ideas and possibilities spontaneously, while Ni "organizes" abstract ideas and possibilities and is therefore more focused and orderly than Ne. But what exactly does it mean to "gather" or "organize" abstract ideas?
> What are some examples of how these look like in real life?


The "Pe gathers, Pi organizes" is some mantra that Turi (in accordance with DaveSuperPowers of course) has been trying to promote, which further adds confusion to what things such as Ne and Ni actually mean. If you're to read Jung, you'd probably come away with the idea that it's Perception in general that gathers, and Judgment in general that organizes, and since he is the source of this terminology I don't get the point of redefining these concepts.


Turi said:


> It's not really 'organizing', as you might think of the term - it's more like it 'organizes' the information it's going to kick off to your decider/judging functions, which actually 'do' something with the information.


Maybe next time you talk to DSP you should tell him to change his terminology. If you're going to try to reduce things down to a few words, it helps to actually choose words that convey what you are trying to get across.

But even so, DSP's theory seems to be predicated on the idea that Pi is the opposite of Pe, and thus Pi's definition must follow from being the opposite of Pe, which frankly seems silly, as they are both perceiving functions. He does a similar thing with the judging functions too.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> The "Pe gathers, Pi organizes" is some mantra that Turi (in accordance with DaveSuperPowers of course) has been trying to promote, which further adds confusion to what things such as Ne and Ni actually mean. If you're to read Jung, you'd probably come away with the idea that it's Perception in general that gathers, and Judgment in general that organizes, and since he is the source of this terminology I don't get the point of redefining these concepts.


Time moves forwards, theories evolve, what's old is refined and/or expanded upon, and the new assumes its position - I don't recall it precisely, but Jung himself said something along the lines of the words of our fathers should be viewed as guidance, though not something to _attach _ourselves to and strictly adhere to.



> Maybe next time you talk to DSP you should tell him to change his terminology. If you're going to try to reduce things down to a few words, it helps to actually choose words that convey what you are trying to get across.
> 
> But even so, DSP's theory seems to be predicated on the idea that Pi is the opposite of Pe, and thus Pi's definition must follow from being the opposite of Pe, which frankly seems silly, as they are both perceiving functions. He does a similar thing with the judging functions too.


The definition of 'organize' makes perfect sense, though the people that are corrupted by internet terminology within the realm of personality theory will fight tooth and nail against it, as they are interpreting the word differently.

Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of 'organize':


> arrange systematically; order.


This is the idea that is being conveyed, it is the perfect word to use - and to people who aren't already poisoned, will make a brilliant kind of sense.

Si, and Ni, arrange systematically, the information they are receiving - and pass it off to the decider/judging functions.
It's literally that simple - in and of themselves, Ni and Si don't 'do' anything, they simply perceive - but it's "what" they perceive, which is where the organization aspect comes in.

It is not 'organize' in the sense of, turning all of the tins of soup in your pantry around so they all face forwards, it is not 'organize' in the sense of getting people together for a common cause, and ensuring everyone arrives at the destination at precisely the right time.

It is organizing the information it observes.
Si, with regards to 'what is' and Ni, with regards to 'what isn't'.

It's also true to Jung, read up on Jungs subjective impressions in the introverted sensation descriptor - the Si type is interested, in only what piques their interest - everything else, is essentially non-existent, Si is portrayed as Switzerland in some respects - this is 'organization' of sensory information.
When something piques the Si types interest, and provokes that sensory impression - then that information is being organized, arranged, and allowed through the neutrality filter - in order - the information is organized.

Say the Si type looks at a woman, the order in which the information comes in, will be in order of interest - bright red hat, big fur coat, leather boots - this is Si, organizing sensory data - it's in order of what has piqued ones interest.

Hopefully this helps.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> Time moves forwards, theories evolve, what's old is refined and/or expanded upon, and the new assumes its position - I don't recall it precisely, but Jung himself said something along the lines of the words of our fathers should be viewed as guidance, though not something to _attach _ourselves to and strictly adhere to.


Some people like science and empirical evidence when it comes to modeling real things, and then you have some people that like what DaveSuperPowers decides to write about on any given day. Before you go all "DSP is _objective_", he is not at all objective in the domain that I am referencing, which is theory and model selection. It is ultimately his completely subjective ramblings and creations which you are parroting. Where's the objectivity in picking "The Animals" over Jung's types or MBTI?

And of course you continue to miss the big picture in your attempt to try to look at things as people accepting of change versus people resistant to change, or people who are "Ni-dom" versus those that aren't. As if the reason why we're not all turning into DSP sheep is that we are somehow closed-minded or blanket rejecting abstract models. Or maybe we're "poisoned" by Internet sources, while you get your theory from DSP, the Channeler of Truth.


> The definition of 'organize' makes perfect sense, though the people that are corrupted by internet terminology within the realm of personality theory will fight tooth and nail against it, as they are interpreting the word differently.
> Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of 'organize':
> This is the idea that is being conveyed, it is the perfect word to use - and to people who aren't already poisoned, will make a brilliant kind of sense.


Yes, we're all poisoned, all except for you.


> Si, and Ni, arrange systematically, the information they are receiving - and pass it off to the decider/judging functions.


In the Turiverse/DSPverse sure. But to most of us, the idea of defining a perceiving process as "systematic" is a no-go.


> It's literally that simple - in and of themselves, Ni and Si don't 'do' anything, they simply perceive - but it's "what" they perceive, which is where the organization aspect comes in.
> It is not 'organize' in the sense of, turning all of the tins of soup in your pantry around so they all face forwards, it is not 'organize' in the sense of getting people together for a common cause, and ensuring everyone arrives at the destination at precisely the right time.
> It is organizing the information it observes.
> Si, with regards to 'what is' and Ni, with regards to 'what isn't'.
> ...


What Jung is describing isn't systematic. Pi types focus on the subjective perception created by objects and that which comes after from inside. Si types focus more on the intensity and character of the perception while Ni types go more into the "why".


> When something piques the Si types interest, and provokes that sensory impression - then that information is being organized, arranged, and allowed through the neutrality filter - in order - the information is organized.


I honestly don't know what you are talking about with an organizing neutrality filter, much less how that ties into Jung.


> Say the Si type looks at a woman, the order in which the information comes in, will be in order of interest - bright red hat, big fur coat, leather boots - this is Si, organizing sensory data - it's in order of what has piqued ones interest.


Where's this from? It just sounds like instincts that humans in general have.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Why do Si types focus on the intensity of their sensory perceptions, @Ocean Helm?

Why do Ni types focus on that causation of their perceptions?

Perhaps a better question would be 'how', because if Si and Ni are not systematically (and automatically) organizing information then how can they do, what they do?

Si types certainly don't experience subjective impressions of everything ever. 
Ni types don't perceive each and every abstract concept, pattern and symbol ever.

There is a focus. How can this be, without organization occurring via the preferred form of perceiving?

The introverted perceiving functions act as filters that determine which information will reach the deciding functions (imo).
It's not conscious, just happens. 

People too far Si/Ni live in a fortress that protects themselves against new information.

On the opposite end, people too far Se/Ne never close the gate and make any kind of sense of what they already have, constantly craving more more more.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Turi

Systematic - done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
Automatic - done or occurring spontaneously, without conscious thought or intention.

One of the words has more to do with judgment and organization; one of the words has more to do with perception and lack of organization.


> People too far Si/Ni live in a fortress that protects themselves against new information.


This description applies more to Jung's Ji types, which I would argue, are the true "opposite" of Pe types. If you like the idea of redefining things, then fine, just don't expect others to want to follow along.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Turi
> 
> Systematic - done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
> Automatic - done or occurring spontaneously, without conscious thought or intention.
> ...


I'm struggling to understand why you're having such difficulty comprehending the concept that a perceiving function 'organizes' the information it allows in.

Systematic and automatic are not antonyms - you're attempting to imply some kind of contradiction here when there is none, consider the act of breathing.
It is systematic, according to a fixed plan or system - your respiratory system - and indeed it is also automatic, occurs without conscious thought or intention.

This same concept is what I'm outlining with regards to the fashion the introverted perceiving functions organize information with.


You could picture Ni/Si as Australias old school copper wire internet network, and somebody saying 'no no no, don't worry about upgrading to fiber optics - I'm just fine with only taking in the tiny amount of information that comes through this, and just going over that ad nauseum' - so they wind up with highly refined perspectives, albeit limited due to an aversion for new information.

You could picture Ne/Se as basically any other countries more advanced fiber optic network and somebody saying 'yeah boiz that's it, more more more more more more more gimme all you got, what's better than fiber optics? Y'all got anything that'll get me more information, even faster than this?' - so they wind up with way too much information than they can understand.


----------



## Daiz (Jan 4, 2017)

Ne is my boss coming up with an idea, me saying "ok, let's do it" and then him going, "No, no, I'm not saying we should go with THIS idea; I'm just musing out loud. We could also do this other idea instead...and this other one or what about this other one...."

Ni is me only half listening because he wants to spend time thoroughly exploring every single idea while I've already chosen the two strongest and most viable concepts out of what he's suggested and am busy distilling their best parts into one really solid hybrid idea.

I'm not a brainstormer. I like to braid multiple things into one but I'm not good at coming up with those raw materials myself. My boss, on the other hand, can do that easily and won't stop unless I put my foot down and say "Let's pick /this/ one." 

I realise it may sound like I don't value Ne but I do - I admire it a lot. Within reason, lol.


----------



## Belledonna (Mar 7, 2018)

Turi said:


> Time moves forwards, theories evolve, what's old is refined and/or expanded upon, and the new assumes its position - I don't recall it precisely, but Jung himself said something along the lines of the words of our fathers should be viewed as guidance, though not something to _attach _ourselves to and strictly adhere to.
> 
> 
> The definition of 'organize' makes perfect sense, though the people that are corrupted by internet terminology within the realm of personality theory will fight tooth and nail against it, as they are interpreting the word differently.
> ...


By the way you say what is and what isn't is like Si gathers things that always been, facts (what is) but what isn't. What does that mean? a possibility?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> I'm struggling to understand why you're having such difficulty comprehending the concept that a perceiving function 'organizes' the information it allows in.


Turi, not adopting DSP's definitions is not equivalent to lack of comprehension. You know, it's possible to both comprehend whatever he's spewing out, and also think he's stupid along with his ideas.


> Systematic and automatic are not antonyms


You're arguing against a straw man, perhaps with typical black-and-white thinking confusing "words with different meaning" with "antonyms".


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Belledonna said:


> By the way you say what is and what isn't is like Si gathers things that always been, facts (what is) but what isn't. What does that mean? a possibility?


All I meant by that was tangible, concrete, observable information as being 'is' - i.e, sensory perception - and imagined concepts, patterns and possibilities as being 'isn't' - i.e intuitive perception (not tangible or physically observable).

So when someone looks at someone and is drawn to say, their eyes - there is an organization of information occurring below the persons level of conscious awareness, that is prioritizing a fixation on their eyes specifically, over gathering all sorts of other observable information ala Se - and I believe Si types then attach subjective meaning onto these objects that pique their interest and pull them out of their Switzerland state.

With Ni, it would be the same thing but an imagined concept or pattern - looking at someone and fixating on the _way their eyes move around_ and the implications therein - so Ni is focusing on something non-tangible - not their _actual _eyes, but the _way _they're looking around and _why_ - this will (for me, at least) manifest as mental simulations of reality, or imagined possibilities - perhaps I imagine some backstory for the person that explains why they move their eyes around in that way, or I imagine they are currently in some particular situation - this whole thing will play out like a movie in my head, I might even be looking at their eyes anymore, maybe I'm just at a pub eating some lunch, but my mind is fixated on this non-tangible, imagined, mental simulation of reality that was provoked by what is essentially an idea, or symbol, of sorts.


Both Si and Ni penetrate beyond the surface level of physical reality and abstract the essence of an object - you could visualize this as a fist reaching out from you, to something that has piqued your interest - and it grabbing something real and tangible (Si) or imagined and non-tangible (Ni) from something outside of your body - then pulling it back to yourself, where you then _perceive the object in accordance with your own (known) information._

This is separate from Se/Ne (imo) whereby they shoot out a million grubby little hands and gather all they can, without truly abstracting the essence and perceiving the object in accordance with their own known information.

Hopefully this image ties into the idea of 'organizing' information, as per the topic title - your Si/Ni has got to be 'organized', at some point (prior to your observations), to decide what is worth reaching out for - and in what order - I believe this entire process is unconscious - and this is the systematic, automatic process that organizes Si and Ni.

I could be all wrong btw - this is just how I see it.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> You're arguing against a straw man, perhaps with typical black-and-white thinking confusing "words with different meaning" with "antonyms".


You're the one who attempted to distinguish the two as separate terms in a black-and-white manner, one applying more to P, one applying more to J - not me, but I digress - let's not derail the topic.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> You're the one who attempted to distinguish the two as separate terms in a black-and-white manner, one applying more to P, one applying more to J - not me, but I digress - let's not derail the topic.


I was illustrating the difference between two words which you used together. When you say something is "systematic", which you tried to say applied to Pi probably because "systematic" was in the definition for "organized", which is the word that DSP uses. If you are to use a word like "systematic" within the domain of cognition, it is not an appropriate adjective for what Jung described Pi types doing a lot of in _Psychological Types_. And whether or not _this_ is "black-and-white", it isn't black-and-white in an obtuse way.

The primary synonyms I saw in a thesaurus were: orderly (as the actual definition), efficient, methodical, organized, precise, and standardized. I already provided a dictionary definition of "systematic".

And since you cited a definition which talked about arranging systematically and ordering, for the word "organize", along with some pretzel logic to rationalize it as applying to Jung's Pi through the word "systematic", I felt it may be helpful for you to get back to basics and see how the words are actually used in the world. Dictionaries, thesauruses, etc, are relatively objective standards, after all, unlike Dave's personality model.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I was illustrating the difference between two words which you used together. When you say something is "systematic", which you tried to say applied to Pi probably because "systematic" was in the definition for "organized", which is the word that DSP uses. If you are to use a word like "systematic" within the domain of cognition, it is not an appropriate adjective for what Jung described Pi types doing a lot of in _Psychological Types_. And whether or not _this_ is "black-and-white", it isn't black-and-white in an obtuse way.


To be blunt - I don't particularly care about what other people laid out. I see the types, and functions, and all their manifestations for myself.
I am not bound to any one particular definition or descriptor.

Systematic is a great fit, in context - I feel you're focusing far too much on something literal, a definition, an actual descriptor - whereas I'm focused something much broader, a concept.
So you're stuck on 'systematic is this' and not connecting the dots, is this what's occurring?
I'm happy to help if something is amiss.




> The primary synonyms I saw in a thesaurus were: orderly (as the actual definition), efficient, methodical, organized, precise, and standardized. I already provided a dictionary definition of "systematic".
> 
> And since you cited a definition which talked about arranging systematically and ordering, for the word "organize", along with some pretzel logic to rationalize it as applying to Jung's Pi through the word "systematic", I felt it may be helpful for you to get back to basics and see how the words are actually used in the world. Dictionaries, thesauruses, etc, are relatively objective standards, after all, unlike Dave's personality model.


In other words, you aren't able to apply ordinary understandings of words to abstract concepts - understandable - though I'd rather not derail this thread attempting to explain my intuitive "pretzel logic" to you.

To this end, I quote Jung:


> (intuition) is not concerned with the present but is rather a sixth sense for hidden possibilities, and therefore should not allow itself to be unduly influenced by existing reality.





> if the numinal accent falls on intuition, actual reality counts only in so far as it seems to harbour possibilities which then become the supreme motivating force, regardless of the way things actually are in the present.



With regards to the organization of perception functions, I ask - why do introverted perceiving types, perceive what they do?
What determines the contents of their perceptions?
Why, for instance, might an introverted Sensation type perceive the subjective impressions that they do - and not any other subjective impressions? Why is there a focus on something so specific?


A systematic, automatic, organization of their perceptions is occurring below the persons level of conscious awareness, that is filtering observable information and directing ones perceptions towards those of the highest priority.
imo.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> To be blunt - I don't particularly care about what other people laid out. I see the types, and functions, and all their manifestations for myself.
> I am not bound to any one particular definition or descriptor.
> 
> Systematic is a great fit, in context - I feel you're focusing far too much on something literal, a definition, an actual descriptor - whereas I'm focused something much broader, a concept.
> ...


Here you go again, using iNtUiTiOn preference as an excuse to shut out "literal" facts. "What systematic means in Turi's head" is not useful for communicating a concept, so maybe if you care so much about helping others understand your great iNtUiTiVe concepts, you should pay a little attention to the concepts you are projecting through your use of language. It's like this false implied dichotomy with "literal" on one side and "conceptual" on the other side which doesn't even exist in most situations. Facts and concepts can be friends.


> In other words, you aren't able to apply ordinary understandings of words to abstract concepts - understandable - though I'd rather not derail this thread attempting to explain my intuitive "pretzel logic" to you.


It's more like when people don't agree with you, you just pretend like they don't "get" your intuition. It's an easy way to preserve illusions inside your head. For what it's worth, dictionary definitions are "abstract" in Jung's conception. You may want to pay more attention to these if you want to bump up your "abstract" cred, which seems to be all that you need in order to justify whatever idea you're promoting at the moment.

And for the record, I just didn't do things the way *you* wanted. Of course, consistent with what I've already said, it would make sense that you would try to spin around people arguing against you as "not being able" to do something based on where they fit inside your personality-reducing system of choice.

But rather than trying to infer that everyone just doesn't "get" your Special Amazing Intuition, you can instead try to look for answers outside of your systems when thinking why they see things differently than you do. Maybe then, you'll actually be able to build up a quality control system for your own ideas, and not have to repeatedly lean on the "I'm such an abstract Ni-dom who doesn't need facts" crutch to evade self-accountability for spreading pretzel logic.


> To this end, I quote Jung:


But hey, you can just quote Jung and put your fingers in your ears while singing "I'm an intuitive!!!"


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

You _could _attempt to assassinate my character, @Ocean Helm - _or_, you could be productive and post something on-topic.

I'm not entirely sure where the holdup is - why aren't you able to apply the definition of 'systematic' to the manner in which one perceives, observes or takes in information?
I'm struggling to identify the problem.

Take the concept of selective perception, and apply that to your 'Ne' and you should hopefully begin to understand.
I'm not trying to be 'abstract' or 'intuitive', and I'm not altering definitions, I'm simply applying the same definition/concept of 'systematic' that you have, to the idea of perception.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Turi why am I not "able" to? Did you really just try to turn this into a question of "ability" again? I should probably just cite my previous post which you called a "character assassination". It's rather ironic how the method you use to defend your own ideas against others so often involves an internal character assassination of your own, directed at the person questioning your ideas. I feel like by pointing this stuff out, maybe you'll improve and start making good posts. Maybe I just have too high of hopes with regards to your potential. I'm not sure.

From a Jungian perspective, to answer your question, I would say that the quality of one's perception being systematic is indicative of perception being _subservient_ to judgment, which would be restraining and directing perception in a systematic matter. Read Jung's description of the Extraverted Thinking type, in order to get an example of how this may look, although I believe this can apply to any of the four rational types, perhaps with a partial exception when it comes to the Introverted Feeling type. In your own words, perception "just happens", presumably as a reaction to stimuli. And you can see Jung about writing how the types with dominant perception go wherever "just happening" things take them. Where's the "system" in that?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Ocean Helm - putting all the BS aside - are you implying judgment occurs unconsciously?

That is essentially where this systematic, organized process is occurring, I don't believe it to pertain to judgment as they are rational. 

What of primordial images/archetypes?
Archetypes have an organizing influence on images and ideas in the way they present themselves - this is getting at the unconscious organization I am discussing.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> @Ocean Helm - putting all the BS aside - are you implying judgment occurs unconsciously?


Huh where would you ever get that from? I'm just saying those who prefer a rational function will more often use perception in a systematic way to assist judgment, because their judgment is their focus, and happens to be systematic.


> That is essentially where this systematic, organized process is occurring, I don't believe it to pertain to judgment as they are rational.


I see systematic perception is kind of an oxymoron, when you put the idea of judgment's restriction of perception in the judgment domain.


> What of primordial images/archetypes?
> Archetypes have an organizing influence on images and ideas in the way they present themselves - this is getting at the unconscious organization I am discussing.


From what I read, that is making appeals to human instincts, which then can then influence perception. Jung's archetypes of the collective unconscious seem like the kind of influence they have would be more in an organic freely flowing push-pull sort of way, that is rough and mainly unpredictable, rather than systematic.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Ocean Helm - would you agree with introverted perception being more narrow than extroverted perception?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Turi narrow in what context? If we're looking at Jung's Ne vs Ni, both are expansive, it's just that while Ne has an object focus, creating external possibilities by shaping the external world, Ni has a subject focus, creating internal possibilities with its mental imagery.


Jung said:


> Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself.


Which one is more "narrow" is more a matter of perspective: Ni being more limited and thus "narrow" in its outer exploration, while Ne is more limited and thus "narrow" in its inner exploration.

In some contexts, Sx can be considered the more "narrow" perception, as it is focused on what is, in seeking intensity whether defined by object or subject, rather than what can be (Nx) in an expansive sense. However, even so, S dominance implies a lack of subservience to judgment which means a J > S will have more "narrow" perception (at least in the sense of the perceiving function's output) than an S > J, for example.

The "narrowest" perception will probably be found in T types. Just read how they are described by Jung.


Jung said:


> In accordance with his definition [Te], we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas.


Now _this_ is what I would consider narrow use of perception.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Ocean Helm - now those images the introverted intuitive chases after - what are they, and why are they appearing in the order they do?

I'll tell you. Images, ideas and archetypes mate. Archetypes are the 'why', they are the organizer. 

From ya boi:



> Archetypes, so far as we can observe and explain them at all, manifest themselves only through their ability to *organize* images and ideas, and this is always an unconscious process which cannot be detected until afterwards.


This is what I'm talking about. 
Something below our level of consciousness is organizing what we perceive.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Turi what you're describing as "organization" (not sure what translation this comes from, because it's not used in mine) is what is done as an unconscious process in the Jungverse. And these archetypes make up the "collective unconscious", meaning they are shared by people in general, not specific to a particular type. When Jung talks about the "subjective factor" getting priority in introverts, he is talking about the "primordial image" getting special priority.

When I talk about Ji organizing information in a personal way, I am not making things up. Here's Jung in _Psychological Types_, literally talking about how Ti approaches facts:


Jung said:


> For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.


There's your "organizing information" done not by Pi, but rather by Ji.

More from "mah boi", also from _Psychological Types_, about the Ti type:


Jung said:


> The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images.


Ideas, primordial images, look what type is doing what you were attributing to Ni. I don't think "organizing" is the best word, but a process is being done which results in "ideas" being centered around primordial images.

Side note: if you look at how Jung uses the word "ideas", at least in this translation, they are the product of judgment, not any sort of perception. Perception, in contrast, produces images. As Jung describes intuition, "the primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways".

Moving on though, now from "The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales":


Jung said:


> This special development in man's idea of spirit rests on the recognition that its invisible presence is a psychic phenomenon, i.e., one's own spirit, and that this consists not only of uprushes of life but of formal products too. Among the first, the most prominent are the images and shadowy presentations that occupy our inner field of vision; among the second, *thinking and reason, which organize the world of images*.


What is it that's organizing the "world of images"?

From "The Psychological Aspects of the Kore":


Jung said:


> Psychic phenomena occasioned by unconscious processes are so rich and so multifarious that I prefer to describe my findings and observations and, where possible, to classify them—that is, to arrange them under certain definite types. That is the method of natural science, and it is applied wherever we have to do with *multifarious and still unorganized material*.


Whatever Jung said about "organizing" in your quote is clearly incomplete, as he talks about the "products of the unconscious" as being "still unorganized", and how he strives to "arrange" them himself. Jung primarily viewed himself as a Ti type, so this can be connected with the previous quote about thinking organizing the "world of images".


Turi said:


> Something below our level of consciousness is organizing what we perceive.


Which obviously isn't "Ni" in Ni types or "Ti" in Ti types, as they are conscious functions. I would argue that it isn't functions at all that do this process in the Jungverse, but I don't know if Jung ever explicitly states this.


----------



## MD_analyst (Jan 29, 2018)

Daiz said:


> Ne is my boss coming up with an idea, me saying "ok, let's do it" and then him going, "No, no, I'm not saying we should go with THIS idea; I'm just musing out loud. We could also do this other idea instead...and this other one or what about this other one...."
> 
> Ni is me only half listening because he wants to spend time thoroughly exploring every single idea while I've already chosen the two strongest and most viable concepts out of what he's suggested and am busy distilling their best parts into one really solid hybrid idea.
> 
> ...


So are you saying Ne and Se are more about generating new ideas and attending to new observable facts respectively, while Ni and Si are more about focusing on a narrower set of ideas and observable facts? For example, Ne would look at a dog and think of all the different things he can possibly do with the dog (abstract subset 1), all the things the dog itself could possibly do (abstract subset 2), and all the possible experiences the dog could have had (abstract subset 3), while Ni would only focus on one or two subsets of those possibilities such as all the possible different things the dog itself could possibly do (abstract subset 2 only)?
And Se would focus on all the different observable features about the dog: the fur (observable subset 1), the size (observable subset 2), the species (observable subset 3), etc., while Si would focus only on a narrower set of observable features, such as the observable features of its fur (observable subset 1 only)?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Turi what you're describing as "organization" (not sure what translation this comes from, because it's not used in mine) is what is done as an unconscious process in the Jungverse. And these archetypes make up the "collective unconscious", meaning they are shared by people in general, not specific to a particular type. When Jung talks about the "subjective factor" getting priority in introverts, he is talking about the "primordial image" getting special priority.


I am definitely talking about unconscious organization. More than aware they're shared by all people, and yes, it is the 'primordial image' getting special priority that is exactly what I'm talking about.



> When I talk about Ji organizing information in a personal way, I am not making things up. Here's Jung in _Psychological Types_, literally talking about how Ti approaches facts:
> 
> There's your "organizing information" done not by Pi, but rather by Ji.


That's all conscious, though - right? 
That's not the kind of organization I'm talking about.

More from "mah boi", also from _Psychological Types_, about the Ti type:



> Ideas, primordial images, look what type is doing what you were attributing to Ni. I don't think "organizing" is the best word, but a process is being done which results in "ideas" being centered around primordial images.
> 
> Side note: if you look at how Jung uses the word "ideas", at least in this translation, they are the product of judgment, not any sort of perception. Perception, in contrast, produces images. As Jung describes intuition, "the primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways".


Yeah you're seeing this from some J lens for sure - I'm talking about something _similar_, but _unconscious_, and in relation to organizing the images intuition receives.
Not an organization of 'ideas' or anything - I'm going before that, to the cause - the 'why', re: the order of images.



> Moving on though, now from "The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales":
> 
> What is it that's organizing the "world of images"?


This is conscious, though, right?



> From "The Psychological Aspects of the Kore":
> 
> Whatever Jung said about "organizing" in your quote is clearly incomplete, as he talks about the "products of the unconscious" as being "still unorganized", and how he strives to "arrange" them himself. Jung primarily viewed himself as a Ti type, so this can be connected with the previous quote about thinking organizing the "world of images".


I'm talking about the level before this 'unorganized' content appears in ones mind - why does it appear, in the order it does?
The process that pulls it from the unconscious to the consciousness is organizing the material before we even 'get' it.

I'm not exactly well-read on this shit and you'll undoubtedly know more than I do - I just want to point out you seem to be addressing a different 'checkpoint' if you will than I am.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> I am definitely talking about unconscious organization. More than aware they're shared by all people, and yes, it is the 'primordial image' getting special priority that is exactly what I'm talking about.


More on this later.


> That's all conscious, though - right?


I thought our focus was on conscious functions.


> That's not the kind of organization I'm talking about.


But it's the kind of organization that other people think of when confronted with the idea of _conscious functions_ organizing.


> Yeah you're seeing this from some J lens for sure





> I'm going before that, to the cause - the 'why', re: the order of images.


I'll just remove this from what you wrote because it is off-topic, and I already explained, just yesterday, what I thought of this mechanism. To quote myself:

* *




Here you go again, using iNtUiTiOn preference as an excuse to shut out "literal" facts. "What systematic means in Turi's head" is not useful for communicating a concept, so maybe if you care so much about helping others understand your great iNtUiTiVe concepts, you should pay a little attention to the concepts you are projecting through your use of language. It's like this false implied dichotomy with "literal" on one side and "conceptual" on the other side which doesn't even exist in most situations. Facts and concepts can be friends.
It's more like when people don't agree with you, you just pretend like they don't "get" your intuition. It's an easy way to preserve illusions inside your head. For what it's worth, dictionary definitions are "abstract" in Jung's conception. You may want to pay more attention to these if you want to bump up your "abstract" cred, which seems to be all that you need in order to justify whatever idea you're promoting at the moment.
And for the record, I just didn't do things the way *you* wanted. Of course, consistent with what I've already said, it would make sense that you would try to spin around people arguing against you as "not being able" to do something based on where they fit inside your personality-reducing system of choice.
But rather than trying to infer that everyone just doesn't "get" your Special Amazing Intuition, you can instead try to look for answers outside of your systems when thinking why they see things differently than you do. Maybe then, you'll actually be able to build up a quality control system for your own ideas, and not have to repeatedly lean on the "I'm such an abstract Ni-dom who doesn't need facts" crutch to evade self-accountability for spreading pretzel logic.






> I'm talking about something _similar_, but _unconscious_, and in relation to organizing the images intuition receives.
> Not an organization of 'ideas' or anything


You'd have to look at the source of that translation to get the best idea of what "organize" is supposed to mean in that context. But let's take it literally, in the full sense of the English word "organize", even though I couldn't find it in the Princeton translation that I'm looking at.

Clearly these "primordial images" bubbling up from whatever the archetypes did to "organize images and ideas", play a big role in what I see Jung calling the "subjective factor". Now for some basic generalizations:
a) introverts (as a whole) prioritize this subjective factor above extraverts
b) rationals (as a whole) have the tendency to shut out information

So who does it logically follow would be shutting out the most information, as a result of the "subjective factor"? Introverted rationals; Ji types. The concept of which I believe translates the best to IxxJ in MBTI, so at least we're on the same page regarding MBTI.

You could even read how Jung describes these introverted rational types, and even extraverted rational types with how the idea takes precedence over new information. Introverted irrational types, on the other hand, are still focused on taking in information; it's just getting distorted by the subjective factor to create this mental imagery, which is derived from, but not objectively verifiable as the stimuli which spark its creation.


> This is conscious, though, right?


Yes, and of course Ti is conscious for Ti types, and Ni is conscious for Ni types. When we're talking about dominant functions responsible for consciously "organizing the world of images", which is an obvious implication from the Turiverse definitions for Pi, it's not Pi in the Jungverse. Of course you will say you _mean_ something different, but if you're giving people the wrong idea, and constantly having to explain yourself using pretzel logic, maybe it's time for new definitions.


> I'm talking about the level before this 'unorganized' content appears in ones mind - why does it appear, in the order it does?
> The process that pulls it from the unconscious to the consciousness is organizing the material before we even 'get' it.


The actual ordering seems like something Ni types may be willing to explore, and Ti types may be willing to analyze it from a more intellectual approach, but as you said it, these processes happen before we "get" it.

So yes that's fine with how you describe the process, but given that it's "organizing" *both ideas and images*, maybe you can see how it can have a direct appeal to judgment functions. But on top of that Jung even describes the Ji types being obsessed with the "primordial image". I don't know how much is supposed to be just sort of let through underdeveloped perception channels, or how much the appeal is made directly to the judgment function (shutting out perception and/or acting alongside underdeveloped perception).

But regardless, it's still Ji types doing the most "shutting out perception due to primordial images". You don't need to read too deeply or extrapolate much for that.


> I'm not exactly well-read on this shit and you'll undoubtedly know more than I do


Typical Turi, in one thread talking about how much you read Jung, and in another thread talking about how you aren't exactly well-read, probably in order to build your Ni cred. But not reading stuff only means Ni in weird worlds such as your own, so I doubt you'll be gaining many believers with that one. Given the way that you prioritize ideas of subjective importance above information intake, I only see you making the case for yourself being a Ti type, even if that's not correct.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

This thread becomes relevant again because apparently Turi is still trying to convince people that DaveSuperFunctions and their Ni/Si "organizing" is "true to Jung", which is obviously not the case.


Turi said:


> "Organize" in this fashion shouldn't be interpreted as an 'action' of sorts, that's something the decider/judging functions do and I'm speaking strictly from an Ni/Si perspective of 'organizing' the incoming information - see it as a filter - Se lets a lot of new, observable information in (and actively seeks it out) for example, Si filters a whole lot of it out and only lets in what's piquing the Si types interest the most - this idea is also _true to Jung_ - I understand the term 'organize' puts people off, makes you think J functions - but understand it as more of a 'filter' - something 'organizing' what information is coming in *_before_* you can possibly consciously organize it ie make sense of it in the traditional sense of the word - perhaps "_Filtering_" might be a more apt and easily relatable term.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> This thread becomes relevant again because apparently Turi is still trying to convince people that DaveSuperFunctions and their Ni/Si "organizing" is "true to Jung", which is obviously not the case.


Do I need to connect the dots for you, @Ocean Helm?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> Do I need to connect the dots for you, @Ocean Helm?


You're free to keep on doing what you've been doing, but if what you provided so far (such as in this thread) is an indication of what's to come regarding the Pi "organizing" DaveSuperFunctions being "true to Jung", it'll just be more time wasted trying to play around with definitions and cherry pick quotes to defend the indefensible.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

I have plenty of examples of how _inferior intuition_ works for me in the case of synthesizing information into a complete insight over a long period of time, but that's about it. I get a gut instinct about something, but then I have to spend a lot of time gathering information from the real world to confirm that instinct. It's very much in reverse. 

I'll be reading and / or researching various topics out of sheer curiousity and not even looking for specific answers when certain pieces of information would come together from unrelated sources and merge into a major insight which then results in me making positive changes in my life/lifestyle. 

Here's one such example (my instinct started bugging me as early as 1998-99 that there are certain key contradictions in Islam which I ignored for a long, long time): I started randomly reading about Mohammad's life in a book called Mohammad by Barnaby Rogerson. This happened sometime in 2003-2004. In that book I picked up certain new details about Mohammad's life that I didn't know/wasn't taught as a muslim growing up. In 2006 or 07, I picked up another book called Peshawar Nights which is a book about a debate between Shias and Sunnis which led to a new understanding into the Shia/Sunni schism that happened in Islam hundreds of years ago. Over time I picked up non-muslim sources on Islam and learned several things like how the Quran that we know today was compiled by Usman during his Caliphate. Then eventually I learned from another source that Muslim Hadeeth didn't come into existence some 200 odd years after Mohammad's death and another bit of information from somewhere else that certain muslim caliphs gave incentives to people for relating Mohammad's hadeeth (which to me read like people would lie for a reward). Eventually this led me to becoming skeptical which led me to finally questioning Allah's existence and then to atheism and the final insight from all these sources merged into one major revelation that Islam is a lie and Allah doesn't exist. This entire synthesis and over-arching insight took 9 years to develop in my case.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> You're free to keep on doing what you've been doing, but if what you provided so far (such as in this thread) is an indication of what's to come regarding the Pi "organizing" DaveSuperFunctions being "true to Jung", it'll just be more time wasted trying to play around with definitions and cherry pick quotes to defend the indefensible.


It's not _really _my problem if you're unable to comprehend the idea that introverted perceiving functions filter the information they received and the extroverted perceiving ones prefer to take it all in.

The 'organizing' aspect, as I've detailed on multiple occasions, is not to be mistaken with the literal organizing of information the decider/judging functions do.

It's literally as simple as this - imagine a pool filter, what's it do? Filters water.
Now imagine the water is information. Now imagine the pool filter is Si/Ni.
Voila. Mission accomplished.
Now whatever actual "real" filtering occurs beyond the filter, is the decider functions doing their job - you're taking the term "Organize" beyond what is acceptable - I've detailed on numerous occasions that you are incorrect in your assumptions here, and why.

It's not my problem from herein.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> It's not _really _my problem if you're unable to comprehend the idea that introverted perceiving functions filter the information they received and the extroverted perceiving ones prefer to take it all in.
> 
> The 'organizing' aspect, as I've detailed on multiple occasions, is not to be mistaken with the literal organizing of information the decider/judging functions do.
> 
> ...


It's your problem that you keep saying that this "organizing" thing is "true to Jung", which you have tried to endlessly argue, and have not gotten anywhere. Then you try to shift the blame onto the people trying to point you in the right direction by making character attacks like that they are "unable to comprehend" your wonderful ideas. No, your ideas are not wonderful, and that's why they can, and have been, easily rebutted this whole time. "Organizing" to describe Turi's Ni/Si, is not only a poor choice of words, but Turi's "filtering" Ni/Si is not true to Jung. I wish Jung's ghost would literally haunt you for comparing Ni/Si to a pool filter, cause your analogy is so far off base, and each time you've tried to "detail", it hasn't gone so well. Retrace the pathway of our little debate in this thread, for example.

If you really want this not to be "your problem", then stop spreading disinformation about what's "true to Jung". You even admit that I've probably read more Jung than you, so what do you know about being true to Jung?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> It's your problem that you keep saying that this "organizing" thing is "true to Jung", which you have tried to endlessly argue, and have not gotten anywhere.


I've detailed explicitly how and why it works and is apt, and is true to Jung, it's on you if you can't understand it. 
I've done my bit, many times over. 




> Then you try to shift the blame onto the people trying to point you in the right direction by making character attacks like that they are "unable to comprehend" your wonderful ideas.


I had no idea informing somebody they're having a hard time understanding a concept was a 'character attack' - my apologies if you feel this way. 



> No, your ideas are not wonderful, and that's why they can, and have been, easily rebutted this whole time. "Organizing" to describe Turi's Ni/Si, is not only a poor choice of words, but Turi's "filtering" Ni/Si is not true to Jung. I wish Jung's ghost would literally haunt you for comparing Ni/Si to a pool filter, cause your analogy is so far off base, and each time you've tried to "detail", it hasn't gone so well. Retrace the pathway of our little debate in this thread, for example.


It's absolute genius and you know it. 



> If you really want this not to be "your problem", then stop spreading disinformation about what's "true to Jung". You even admit that I've probably read more Jung than you, so what do you know about being true to Jung?


I'm not, simple as that - re: Jung, this was obviously before I realized you're not as well read as I'd been led to believe and before I understood certain limitations.

From Jung, re: introverted intuitive type:



> Although his intuition may be stimulated by external objects, it does not concern itself with external possibilities but with what the external object has released within him.


IOW, hooked on own intuitive perceptions internally - excludes external possibilities ie Ne. 



> .. since he tends to rely most predominantly on his vision, his moral efforts become one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic—adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to present-day reality.


IOW, too concerned with own vision to take in information in real time ie present day reality ie sensation. 
So the idea here rings true, Ni filters out Ne and basically ignores S unconsciously. 
Filter/organize idea is true to Jung assuming you're not intentional trying to force yourself to be hooked on a very literal use of the word 'organize', one that has on numerous occasions been explained. 

Do I need to do Si or are we done?
I could write like 100 pages on this shit, and draw from infinite sources, if required.
It's accurate.


----------



## Elwinz (Jan 30, 2018)

Guys, this topic was made about *REAL LIFE *examples, yet you have made it massive theory fest. I was actually hyped for this thread is i wanted to know how to spot Ne in real life .. than i see 3 pages of theory.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Elwinz said:


> Guys, this topic was made about *REAL LIFE *examples, yet you have made it massive theory fest. I was actually hyped for this thread is i wanted to know how to spot Ne in real life .. than i see 3 pages of theory.


We're on a personality _theory_ forum, what did you expect?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Turi you can keep on writing 100 pages on "this shit" (apt language to describe it by the way), but if you keep doing mental gymnastics to try to defend your DaveSuperFunctions (I'm assuming that's what they are) as "true to Jung" you aren't going to get very far.

This isn't even addressing what I've stated. There are so many things that really just make your posts a mess to parse.

Is it, or is it not your position, that it is consistent with Jung to say that: introverts dominant in perception shut out the most information? If it is, then if you are to respond to me, you should be making the point that Jungian "introverted irrationals" shut out more information than Jungian "rationals".


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Turi said:


> We're on a personality _theory_ forum, what did you expect?


this video seems wrong to me on so many levels, for starters the premise that one person can do all 4 of those things... if they can, it's not because of those functions, because no one can utilize all 4 of those efficiently. If they can follow the steps i.e. market research to future paths it's likely not because they use perception functions, but because judging functions interject. He is creating an impossible scenario to back up his arguments when it's not realistic at all. And it's funny because at some point he mentions that even Se doms don't do market research right, an observation that should scream to his face that he's looking at this wrong if he wasn't so focused on what his NI is telling him xD oh the irony


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> Is it, or is it not your position, that it is consistent with Jung to say that: introverts dominant in perception shut out the most information?


I cut out all the bullshit, and no, it's not, that's too broad and misleading. 

It is only true insofar as it relates to _new, externally sourced_ information, just like Jung alluded to.

Introverted perceivers perceive inwardly, that's where the depth to them is, that's where the information they're oriented towards is and this inner world of perception is by all accounts rich and expansive.

I in no way shape or form, agree that IxxJ types are shut off to their own internal information by way of their introverted perception.

Just my 2c.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> this video seems wrong to me on so many levels, for starters the premise that one person can do all 4 of those things


Wait.. You don't honestly think this, do you? 
You've read _Psychological Types_? _Gifts Differing_?

This is a critical error.


----------

