# Ni Discussion



## sweaters (Nov 21, 2014)

Can someone ask me questions about Ni? I wanna talk about Ni. But I don't feel like starting from scratch. I wanna clear this ish up tho ok.


----------



## grimoire (Nov 7, 2015)

I'd love to hear about Ni. Ni has always been the hardest function for me to understand since it seems extremely unconscious and very mysterious--it seems very far away from anything I've experienced. So, as a Ni dom how do you experience Ni in your day to day life? Is it truly as unconscious as I think it is, or are you aware when you're using Ni or not? How do you interpret the world with such a symbolism focused dominant function?

Hopefully this is what you wanted when you asked for someone to ask you questions, haha.


----------



## TemptingFate (Jun 15, 2015)

You can be aware you're using Ni. Usually staring and percieving information, kind of like a secret news feed that only you can see. Usually it pieces several points of information together to a new conclusion. F.ex. if you say "people who drink 4 cups of coffee are more likely to be depressed" then Ni might remember someone who drank 4 cups of coffee from 2 years ago and realize that this person was depressed. Then I might say "shit John was depressed" and people wonder who the hell John is.

Whenever new information is added, there is a chance that a new conclusion is drawn and it's not really voluntary. Now Ni is not a prophecy, it produces a lot of bullshit which is why we have Te to check it.

I think it's similar to extroverted intuition except that it deals with internal impressions and such. It takes pieces and creates a new pattern. It likes to consolidate information to one pattern. Whenever I'm studying I always make some sort of "master picture" where every bit of information has been merged into one picture.


----------



## sweaters (Nov 21, 2014)

From typical Ni desciptions, we know a few basic facts about Ni: It's convergent, it views things at several angles, it's future oriented. But how do these things relate? And what do they actually mean about the Ni process?

Allow me to describe this from a visual standpoint. Imagine you have a 3 dimensional field, representing a large concept, and on the 3D field you have many 2D planes that are shifting and turning. For an Ni-dom, as they associate themselves with a large concept, they start to see more and more of these 2D planes. These planes represent every level or layer of the concept - for example, one plane might represent a large, zoomed out view of the concept, while another might represent a very detailed one. The Ni's focus is in shifting and moving these planes around until they find an axis, or a commonality, for them all to shift around. All other points on any given plane will be Se data that has been on some level rejected by Ni as irrelevant to the common point, yet probably at some point helped the Ni user to find the common axis in the first place.

In other words, what's happening is Se-information gathering, and Ni wants to whittle the concept down into one or few principles. We tend to see Ne as much larger and expansive, however I want to clear up the fact that Ni can see as much as Ne does, however the Ni/Se pair navigates only with the bias of practicality. The Ni/Se pair sees all these possibilities as equal (Se is broad and doesn't penetrate an object, making it difficult to capture Ni's interest with any one 'possibility'). So instead of jumping immediately to any one possibility, they wait for all possibilities to occur to gather as much information as possible. Let's put it into terms of Ni's angle switching - Ne/Si sees an angle and runs with it. Ni/Se waits for all angles to occur but doesn't run with any of them. Si creates discrete platforms that Ne uses as platforms to jump around on, making Si/Ne very disjointed and distracted. Se on the other hand creates a big amorphous blob for Ni to jump around inside of, keeping the thought continuous and related.

So what does this actually look like? Let's say I'm reading a chapter in my biology textbook. All of biology for me as an Ni-dom is basically one huge Se blob. This means that I view biology as something that is connected on every level. So when reading, I consider every 'layer' of the concept: How does this chapter affect biology as a whole? How does this allow other processes in biology to work? How does this process I'm reading about work on it's own? How do the details and the generalities of this process relate to what I already know? What terms do I need to know? What terms encompass entire concepts that I need to know? Basically I'm zooming in and out constantly, gathering information, seeing how information correlates with itself, and seeking out relevances.

As far as the visual element of Ni goes, this is largely why Ni deals in symbolism, but here you must keep in mind Ni's nature of convergence, or principality. As Ni whittles away at Se data, it finds principles. To get as minimal as possible, Ni wants to express this visually, but the nature of the Ni representation will always implicitly express more than what is shown. A very common involuntary visualization of mine is placing pieces of concepts on a number line in points, and the behavior of the concept will be expressed by those points moving relatively to one another. It's important here to keep in mind that Ni's purpose with these representations is not the representation itself; rather, the representation, if effective, holds certain logistics that allows the user to find their way to the specifics of the concept. For instance, think about the difference between knowing how to solve a math problem, and knowing how and why the formula works the way it does. Ni is more interested in the latter, and as far as it is concerned, the formula itself is too specific to be considered immediately relevant.

These things can be conscious or unconscious. Ni is focused on the patterns of the unconscious, which means in a sense it could be focused on itself, and that is when Ni can be deliberate and conscious.

Ask me more questions!!!


----------



## sweaters (Nov 21, 2014)

The 'leaps' intuition makes are usually unconscious, but starting and ending points are usually conscious. Being Ni-dom is torture half the time cause you don't know why you think anything that you think but it all feels so right...


----------



## sweaters (Nov 21, 2014)

edit


----------



## sweaters (Nov 21, 2014)

TemptingFate said:


> You can be aware you're using Ni. Usually staring and percieving information, kind of like a secret news feed that only you can see. Usually it pieces several points of information together to a new conclusion. F.ex. if you say "people who drink 4 cups of coffee are more likely to be depressed" then Ni might remember someone who drank 4 cups of coffee from 2 years ago and realize that this person was depressed. Then I might say "shit John was depressed" and people wonder who the hell John is.



Absolutely. As I mentioned above, Ni is a very relative process, and seeing as Pi (not just Si) is associated with memory, Ni/Se's memory work by association - 4 cups of coffee, people you remember who did this, time period this was in, etc. It's more of a web. For this reason (and others) I like to think of Ni/Se as continuous, and Si/Ne as discrete (Si gathers subjective accounts of isolated, unassociated data.


----------



## sweaters (Nov 21, 2014)

~


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

What does a mere chicken have to do with this?


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

@sweaters

What is a human? Show your best.


----------



## sweaters (Nov 21, 2014)

Mantas said:


> @sweaters
> 
> What is a human? Show your best.



A human is an overtly biased mental structure which gets morphed based on its surroundings and its own limitations/structure.

Also known as: 'the worst'



yeah sorry i deleted everything everyone those descriptions would have just caused more confusion


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

TemptingFate said:


> You can be aware you're using Ni. Usually staring and percieving information, kind of like a secret news feed that only you can see. Usually it pieces several points of information together to a new conclusion. F.ex. if you say "people who drink 4 cups of coffee are more likely to be depressed" then Ni might remember someone who drank 4 cups of coffee from 2 years ago and realize that this person was depressed. Then I might say "shit John was depressed" and people wonder who the hell John is.
> 
> Whenever new information is added, there is a chance that a new conclusion is drawn and it's not really voluntary. Now Ni is not a prophecy, it produces a lot of bullshit which is why we have Te to check it.
> 
> I think it's similar to extroverted intuition except that it deals with internal impressions and such. It takes pieces and creates a new pattern. It likes to consolidate information to one pattern. Whenever I'm studying I always make some sort of "master picture" where every bit of information has been merged into one picture.


If we are talking about Jung's definition of Ni, the example given here to me is describing more a thinking process (and apperception).


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

As far as I have noticed Ni is mostly created through Se rejection or acceptance. Do you reject more or accept?

What I wonder is how Ni differs when constructed consciously vs unconsciously.

How do you differ Ni in relations to past, present and future.

Ni seems to be constructed from Pe and Je while Ji seems to be a self confirmation bias. Would you agree, why is that?


----------



## Remcy (Dec 19, 2011)

jkp said:


> As far as I have noticed Ni is mostly created through Se rejection or acceptance. Do you reject more or accept?
> 
> What I wonder is how Ni differs when constructed consciously vs unconsciously.
> 
> ...


Se doesn't really accept or reject. It's just objective sensory data. Some data might be missed, but that's not a conscious decision Se makes - it's mostly a force of habit of what to pay attention to.

Consciously constructed Ni is more accurate, more complete. Unconsciously constructed Ni is mostly hunches, subtle visions, impulsive ideas etc.

Could you specify your third question a bit more?

I agree with the fourth; Pe and Je provide data for Ni to build, and Ji is like a hatchet that cuts away the extra stuff, based on its internal framework.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

Remcy said:


> Se doesn't really accept or reject. It's just objective sensory data. Some data might be missed, but that's not a conscious decision Se makes - it's mostly a force of habit of what to pay attention to.
> 
> Consciously constructed Ni is more accurate, more complete. Unconsciously constructed Ni is mostly hunches, subtle visions, impulsive ideas etc.
> 
> ...


I was talking about how Se is rejected as truth to create Ni truth. In that case the Se is seen as primitive. INFJ seem to want to escape the real world through some sort of spirituality.

How is consciously Ni being constructed in opposition to unconscious. Dont they both just appear as being a perception?

3rd question: Ni is a way of the best/final conclusion, the conclusion can be either positive or negative, it can form from a past event or a future orientation, both.


----------



## chanteuse (May 30, 2014)

Metaphors. Ni loves metaphors. It isn't literal or in your face. The fun part was the hidden meaning. 

I often talk using words to paint a picture or using legends or literary sources to convey what I mean. It can be rather convoluted to those who are straight shooter. 

Also, I love irony and sarcasm. It's the same principle, using something to say something. 


Ni doesn't self generate data. I'd say I collect data constantly. Every day I am on line getting all sorts of information. It's never purposeful. I just do it without realizing I am doing it. My mother used to tell me if I had spent my energy in absorbing "useless" information to studying textbooks, I'd be accepted by Harvard (exaggerated). My friends some are amazed how I can "pull things out of my hat". Se is constantly collecting. Ni is constantly processing and filing.


----------



## Marduk (Nov 9, 2015)

jkp said:


> I was talking about how Se is rejected as truth to create Ni truth. In that case the Se is seen as primitive. INFJ seem to want to escape the real world through some sort of spirituality.
> 
> How is consciously Ni being constructed in opposition to unconscious. Dont they both just appear as being a perception?
> 
> 3rd question: Ni is a way of the best/final conclusion, the conclusion can be either positive or negative, it can form from a past event or a future orientation, both.


I'm not sure what you are talking about. We never question our extraverted perception. It just is. There is no rejecting Se, and we aren't fantasy oriented (those are INFPs who think they are XNFJ).

Ni isn't conscious. The Ni that appears to be conscious is actually our introverted judging function—Ti—conceptualizing and categorizing insights that have already been made. Ti is really our last function, even though it is our tertiary. We absorb Pe and Je data, which our introverted intuition vets for the fundamentals, then we think about the insights with Ti. (Looking at functions in isolation is a very common mistake: our Ti is engaged with different concepts than an INTP's would, due to the differences in information gathering and prioritization of the two types. Ti in itself has nothing to do with mathematics or other impersonal systems; that's Ne or Se—INTP and ISTP, respectively.)

Se is inextricable from Ni, so inferior Se is a bit misleading. When you say our Se is primitive, that's true, but it is more primitive in the sense it is only engaged in extremes. All Ni dominants are either engaging their Se entirely or hardly at all, vs our Je function—Te in INTJ and Fe in INFJ—which is always at least partially engaged, if not fully.

As for your third question, Ni makes no value judgments. Ni only cares about what is; in this sense the past is just context for the present, which is why many Ni dominants have an interest in history: it's pragmatic lessons for us, if it's accurate (true for all types, but even more so for us). Ni takes your extroverted input and filters out the inessential, while leaving you with a fundamental base. Think of someone cooking off soda on a stove: you remove all the water, and are left with the sugars and other main ingredients of soda. There is no interpretation, which is where you are making a mistake. The only function we interpret is our Ji. All Ni dominants are inherently reality based, although we are seldom pragmatic, due to low Se. I always use the adjective "insightful" for Ni and "creative" for Ne. We don't create, we realize the fundamental truth behind something—Fe societal structures for XNFJ, and impersonal Te structures for XNTJ.


----------



## Marduk (Nov 9, 2015)

chanteuse said:


> Allegory. Ni loves allegory. It isn't literal or in your face. The fun part was the hidden meaning.
> 
> I often talk using words to paint a picture or using legends or literary sources to convey what I mean.


Sounds like you are a mistyped Ne user of some sort. We are about as literal as you can get, and we try to simplify complex information. Only an Ne user would add to it. Our use of simile is just for simplification purposes.


----------



## chanteuse (May 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Sounds like you are a mistyped Ne user of some sort. We are about as literal as you can get, and we try to simplify complex information. Only an Ne user would add to it. Our use of simile is just for simplification purposes.


Sorry I meant metaphors.

Introverted Intuition (Ni)

Ne is very different. My SIL is an ENFP. She talks with ideas; 3, 5, 10 different ideas flowing out of her mouth. I could "see" how her mind was tinkering with the ideas while she's saying the words. I was the opposite. My idea is usually a result of some kind of incubation, after god knows how long I've collected intel here and there. It's much harder for me to talk like Sherlock Holms. To me, the way he gathers intel and how fast he came up with ideas is rather Ne, even if he may not be a Ne dominant.


----------



## Marduk (Nov 9, 2015)

sweaters said:


> From typical Ni desciptions, we know a few basic facts about Ni: It's convergent, it views things at several angles, it's future oriented. But how do these things relate? And what do they actually mean about the Ni process?
> 
> Allow me to describe this from a visual standpoint. Imagine you have a 3 dimensional field, representing a large concept, and on the 3D field you have many 2D planes that are shifting and turning. For an Ni-dom, as they associate themselves with a large concept, they start to see more and more of these 2D planes. These planes represent every level or layer of the concept - for example, one plane might represent a large, zoomed out view of the concept, while another might represent a very detailed one. The Ni's focus is in shifting and moving these planes around until they find an axis, or a commonality, for them all to shift around. All other points on any given plane will be Se data that has been on some level rejected by Ni as irrelevant to the common point, yet probably at some point helped the Ni user to find the common axis in the first place.
> 
> ...


This is a genius post, I just want to say. You obviously have high tertiary Ti and a very good grasp of the theory.

I agree with almost everything, especially the biology example. This is exactly how I view new fields of study, as well. The complexities of the material are irrelevant, at least until you've understood the fundamentals. This has been a great source of frustration for me when I've had to deal with teachers who teach too specifically. It is like they are using a microscope and I am viewing it normally. We are opposites of Ne, Si perceivers in this regard: we look at the complete picture and complicate it as needed, and they build up toward a complete picture by using complicated fragments as building blocks. Your insight into Ni is impressive.

What I'm wondering if you have any insights on, is the fundamental nature of how the functions relate to one another. I mostly know the theory as a demonstrably working theory, but there seems to be very little reading material overall. There is an inextricable connection between both of any type's perception functions—for us it is Ni and Se. The same is true of any type's judgement functions—for us Fe and Ti. All in all, there are really only two perception clusters and two judgement clusters that can be arranged to make the 16 types.

So my question is: how do function stacks relate? Take an ISTP for instance: they have the same functions as us oriented differently. Are our differences linear or are they fundamentally different? ISTPs, for example, don't seem to view everything on a macro scale, due to the fact they only have Ni as a tertiary function, I assume. Is the Ni oriented to Se more than Fe in their type? I hope this isn't confusing, but I'm wondering if you can just look at the function stack, or if there's some deeper connection. Is it just a literal translation of XSTPs are good at Se activities and bad at Fe ones, and XNFJs are good at Fe activities and bad at Se ones? Like I said earlier, my understanding of the theory says that our Ti is oriented towards completely different information than an Se user's would be—namely Fe.

Also, is it incorrect to view your introverted and extroverted perceiving functions as one unit—even though they are? One comes at the direct expense of the other—i.e., an inverse relationship—according to the theory. Someone with strong Ni has inherently weak Se. So are Ni and Se perception the same in all types? Are they just oriented differently, or do the judgment functions that they are operating with change them fundamentally? I would assume that Ni, Se is stable, and it is just the priority and judgment functions that result in different types, but I'm not positive.

I hope this is clear. I'm having trouble elucidating my thoughts.


----------



## sweaters (Nov 21, 2014)

mistakenforstranger said:


> I think if you really want to understand Ni, read "Siddhartha" by Hermann Hesse. Hesse was certainly an INFJ, and Siddhartha explores Ni/Se equally while striving to come to a resolution between those different ways of being. How Ni of him. It's all about a quest for enlightenment.


Thanks, but I understand Ni and have read Siddhartha, as I have many other INFJ authors. To be quite honest, I don't appreciate the condescension.

If you don't agree with my example, that's fine. That's a disagreement about a specific example, not about the theory. I see Ni in quite the same way as you actually, and Ti as well.

If I must try to argue for my example any further, I'll only say this: every question I presented is not something I'm asking myself to logic through. They each represent an unconscious lens with which I view the information at a given time, or a 'place' where information goes back to. Ti only comes in when I _can't_ understand the information or answer those questions, and that's when I'm consciously aware of what questions I'm really asking. Again I was only trying to illustrate the process, and I understand that I probably made it sound like Ni behaves more deliberately than it does. I do find it difficult to try to represent Ni's workings using a tangible example, but given the shoddy information that's out there and the complexity of Ni as it is, I think it's important to at least try to give a concrete sense of what's happening during Ni. Maybe I failed at that, but whatever.


----------



## Shonz (Nov 30, 2015)

sweaters said:


> From typical Ni desciptions, we know a few basic facts about Ni: It's convergent, it views things at several angles, it's future oriented. But how do these things relate? And what do they actually mean about the Ni process?
> 
> Allow me to describe this from a visual standpoint. Imagine you have a 3 dimensional field, representing a large concept, and on the 3D field you have many 2D planes that are shifting and turning. For an Ni-dom, as they associate themselves with a large concept, they start to see more and more of these 2D planes. These planes represent every level or layer of the concept - for example, one plane might represent a large, zoomed out view of the concept, while another might represent a very detailed one. The Ni's focus is in shifting and moving these planes around until they find an axis, or a commonality, for them all to shift around. All other points on any given plane will be Se data that has been on some level rejected by Ni as irrelevant to the common point, yet probably at some point helped the Ni user to find the common axis in the first place.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much. You cleared up most of what I didn't understand about Ni. But I do have one concern though.
I tend to see things as a series of hypotheticals which could occur while my mind zeroes in on the most likely to happen basend on Best/Worst Analysis.
Is this typical Ni behaviour or am I just unhealthy?


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

sweaters said:


> Thanks, but I understand Ni and have read Siddhartha, as I have many other INFJ authors. To be quite honest, I don't appreciate the condescension.
> 
> If you don't agree with my example, that's fine. That's a disagreement about a specific example, not about the theory. I see Ni in quite the same way as you actually, and Ti as well.
> 
> If I must try to argue for my example any further, I'll only say this: every question I presented is not something I'm asking myself to logic through. They each represent an unconscious lens with which I view the information at a given time, or a 'place' where information goes back to. Ti only comes in when I _can't_ understand the information or answer those questions, and that's when I'm consciously aware of what questions I'm really asking. Again I was only trying to illustrate the process, and I understand that I probably made it sound like Ni behaves more deliberately than it does. I do find it difficult to try to represent Ni's workings using a tangible example, but given the shoddy information that's out there and the complexity of Ni as it is, I think it's important to at least try to give a concrete sense of what's happening during Ni. Maybe I failed at that, but whatever.


The best way to visualize Ni...a lump of coal turning into a diamond. Ni is all about transformation, and not so much a convergence but an elevation in thought, a reaching for the ideal. I'm starting to wonder if it even has anything to do with perspective-shifting, symbolism, patterns, etc. It does, but that's intuition in general, so in my previous example about noticing symbols and patterns in a text that really applies to all intuitive types. I think the difference is that Ni sees only what they see. Subjective vision. So, if a group of people all read a book together, a few people may come to similar interpretations, but no one sees what Ni sees. What Ni sees isn't observable or present in the information and this applies to reality too. 

As for Siddhartha, I only wanted to point it out because of its Ni/Se dynamic. In the first half, he completely devalues his senses and tries to arrive at a higher understanding unencumbered by real, embodied experience. Yet, in the second half, he does the complete opposite, indulging in his senses, living life to the fullest, but loses his perspective in the process. It's Ni-Se writ large! 

@_jkp_, can you explain how Ti works for you? I'm just curious to clear this up.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

mistakenforstranger said:


> As for Siddhartha, I only wanted to point it out because of its Ni/Se dynamic. In the first half, he completely devalues his senses and tries to arrive at a higher understanding unencumbered by real, embodied experience. Yet, in the second half, he does the complete opposite, indulging in his senses, living life to the fullest, but loses his perspective in the process. It's Ni-Se writ large!
> 
> @_jkp_, can you explain how Ti works for you? I'm just curious to clear this up.


I agree with you about Siddhartha, have read the book but never thought about it in your words.

I do not think I will be able to correctly answer a complicated question as how Ti works but I plan to some day. But what I have noticed it works as a filter and I assume it is located somewhere in the prefrontal cortex (orbitofrontal). Dario Nardi talks about the last exit point of brain activity.
So the question is what is the filter, what it filters, how it filters, how it grows as a filter.
I will escape from defining how the filter works in case of how close to conscious it is or why everyone does not use it in the same way.

But in short I believe I have always intentionally tried to block Fi and replace it with Ti. And when I look back in youth I know my Ti was undeveloped to the point that I was xNxP. After understanding the mechanics of objects within the world you can connect certain logical principles to one another or at least compare them. In my brain I assume it works as a modest filter for Ne, which is the process I try to image relate to objects. While at the same time Ti can stop me from making social errors and step in for lack of Fe part of the brain. I think Ti is almost glued to Ne when Ne wants to make an analogy as to examples to logical relations of meaning, it jumps back an forth with unimaginable speed.
Its like jumping from one point to another figuring out what is correctly related to each point. But you have explained this in a better way in previous posts, so I will not continue.

I have noticed in INxJ that they are not as interested in Ti as I am but can understand it just as well, if not better. If for example the Ni dom is a enneagram 8 his brain power will not be able to focus consciously on the Ti as he is not prepared to doubt his logical consistency but merely tries to introduce Ni with his Je functions. But when pushed into a corner to explain his reasoning behind the idea, he will be forced to use Ti to evaluate his own logic through internal processes.


As you put it nicely here:


> And with Ni, it seeks that interpretation which has never been heard before. What you see in the text is only dependent on you. Ni is subjective. You have to use the extraverted functions of Fe/Se to make your insights communicable and recognizable to other people, otherwise they will have a hard time understanding what it is that you see so clearly.


Ni is supposed to be a never ending process of moving toward a point 0 with two axis, the width of the axis represents the base of knowledge Ni works with to get to the point its "natural goal" is designed for. It wants to make conclusions from Je data.
I dont believe reaching point 0 is a healthy thing for a Ni dom but moving towards it is.


----------



## sweaters (Nov 21, 2014)

mistakenforstranger said:


> The best way to visualize Ni...a lump of coal turning into a diamond. Ni is all about transformation, and not so much a convergence but an elevation in thought, a reaching for the ideal. I'm starting to wonder if it even has anything to do with perspective-shifting, symbolism, patterns, etc. It does, but that's intuition in general, so in my previous example about noticing symbols and patterns in a text that really applies to all intuitive types. I think the difference is that Ni sees only what they see. Subjective vision. So, if a group of people all read a book together, a few people may come to similar interpretations, but no one sees what Ni sees. What Ni sees isn't observable or present in the information and this applies to reality too.
> 
> As for Siddhartha, I only wanted to point it out because of its Ni/Se dynamic. In the first half, he completely devalues his senses and tries to arrive at a higher understanding unencumbered by real, embodied experience. Yet, in the second half, he does the complete opposite, indulging in his senses, living life to the fullest, but loses his perspective in the process. It's Ni-Se writ large!
> 
> @_jkp_, can you explain how Ti works for you? I'm just curious to clear this up.


again, im confused as to why you keep trying to explain ni to me. as ive stated i agree pretty heavily with you.


EDIT: how is any elevation of thought going to happen without any mechanism or process?


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

sweaters said:


> again, im confused as to why you keep trying to explain ni to me. as ive stated i agree pretty heavily with you.
> 
> 
> EDIT: how is any elevation of thought going to happen without any mechanism or process?


I mean, I thought you wanted to discuss Ni...

I'm just sharing my point of view. If I'm explaining Ni, it's really intended for everyone. 

And for your question: Ni has a will of its own.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

When I try to think about the future as an outcome of hypothetical reality I try to imagine the outcome to be a sequence of plausible actions. I dont try to project emotions on to it, I usually want to sum up the outcomes to a mere 2 possible futures (cultures, dogmas).

I was trying to imagine how Se doms differ than Ni doms by usage of Ni from interpreting two close friends, one INTJ and other ESTP.
Both seem to take highly of getting information about reality and give some kind of a deeper meaning to it. Ni dom is more being-in-future oriented and is looking outside its own experience of reality in comparison to a negative future outlook of Se dom that is being-in-present oriented. Se dom looks in what must be prevented in order to keep their "self" from experiencing something outside of comfort, being more conservative in their outlook in order to obtain what is meaningful as being a part of them, replacing Ni with Si just as I like to replace Si with Ni (e.g. my first sentence).

So by that logic the Ni dom will be able to replace Se with Ne. Could you agree, why not?
@mistakenforstranger @sweaters @Marduk @seriousguy

How long is your span of imagining the future, thinking in case of inner-dialog about certain outcomes?
Do you consider yourself stubborn in case of knowing a future outcome that you can not prove unless one tries to follow your reasoning?
At what faults has Ni led you believe in a false idea? I know Ni comes often as an insight but you must understand your reasoning behind it. Ni sticks great with F functions but it need good T reasoning to follow.
Are you ideas often unreasonable when you check with Te Reasoning?

Since Fe fills Ni through emotional investment of a better cultural outcome it can neglect the harsh truth of practical knowledge in terms of Te. Fe is backed up by Ti logic reasoning.
So do INTJ often make the same mistake but other side of the coin, i.e. they might ignore the Fe side of the outcome by projecting a negative harmony due to Te (the most practical or cruel solution). @seriousguy wasnt your topic about something like a question to this?


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

jkp said:


> I agree with you about Siddhartha, have read the book but never thought about it in your words.
> 
> I do not think I will be able to correctly answer a complicated question as how Ti works but I plan to some day. But what I have noticed it works as a filter and I assume it is located somewhere in the prefrontal cortex (orbitofrontal). Dario Nardi talks about the last exit point of brain activity.
> So the question is what is the filter, what it filters, how it filters, how it grows as a filter.
> ...


I'm sorry, but I have a hard time understanding your cognitive process exactly. Not from any lack on your part in describing it, but because it seems so foreign to me. I'll admit, though, that Ti is the most difficult of the functions to understand and recognize in myself. I've been able to come to my own interpretations of how Ni, Fe and Se (by its opposition to Ni) manifest, but Ti is a lot harder for me to detect.

In one way, it's beneficial in that it helps hone Ni's insights, by bringing things down to their bare essentials, understanding at a fundamental level. Figuratively speaking, for me, Ti is the function that wants to examine everything under a microscope. On the other hand, Ti seems to instill in me a persistent sense of doubt. Ni will have this grand epiphany, a sureness to everything, but Ti complicates the process and steps in to say, "Are you sure? Is that really going to work? How are you going to do that?" Ni sees the way forward, but Ti is a giant roadblock to Se, which gives one the necessary sense of action. When Ni listens to Ti too much, the vision vanishes. I think Nietzsche brought this Ni-Ti paradox together quite nicely with his famous quote:

"He who has a why to live can bear almost any how." 



jkp said:


> Ni is supposed to be a never ending process of moving toward a point 0 with two axis, the width of the axis represents the base of knowledge Ni works with to get to the point its "natural goal" is designed for. It wants to make conclusions from Je data.
> I dont believe reaching point 0 is a healthy thing for a Ni dom but moving towards it is.


I like your analogy of two axis, each moving toward a fixed goal. I think of Ni's goal, as cliche as it might be, as striving to reach the peak of a mountain. In that sense, yes, Ni is convergent, focused on reaching one point. Yet it's also about the transformation one will have, they believe, once they reach the mountaintop: a new vantage point from which to see things. In Ni's mind, the future holds so much promise, unlike the present moment. And since Ni is completely focused on reaching the future goal, the top of the mountain, it tends to miss everything else around them on their way up, which I think are usually manifestations of one's extraverted functions (Fe/Te and Se). The cruel irony is that once INxJs reach their desired goal, if they ever do, it's never as glorious as they imagined it to be. They've built it up so much in their minds, it's only natural they would be disappointed by the form it takes in reality. One's reminded of Plato, who's usually typed as an INFJ, and his Theory of Forms. This is why I really like your idea, brilliant actually, that it's healthy for Ni to strive towards it, but never reach it. 

Never reaching it, though, is so against what Ni wants. More than anything, Ni wants its vision, however INxJs see it, to take shape in reality now. You won't hear it said very often, but in actuality, Ni on its own is lazy, or at least physically inactive (inf. Se). If it could, Ni would skip all of the toil and scaling of the mountain that is necessary to reach the peak, and would make their vision a reality without any effort. To Ni's dismay, though, this is impossible, and why one's extraverted functions are so psychologically important. It is only with Fe/Se (INFJ) or Te/Se (INTJ) that INxJs will set limits on their overriding dominant Ni, which tends to become enamored with the future they envision for themselves to the exclusion of all else, and decides to make it happen.

So, yes, I agree, it's a more healthy attitude to loosen one's grip on the fixed, imagined future point. In the end, it's illusive. Viktor Frankl, another INFJ I think, has this exact idea, when he says that happiness cannot be pursued, but must ensue. The more we strive for happiness itself, a fixed point, the more it eludes us, and the more we miss the things that truly give one happiness. To him, happiness comes as a byproduct, and that the direct pursuit of happiness is ultimately self-defeating. 

Another manifestation of this idea is brilliantly put by the German poet Rainer Maria Rilke, who has to be an Ni-dom merely on the basis of this quote, which is gold for INxJs:

"I beg you, to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don’t search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer."

I'll get to your new questions a little later, since I wrote this in response to your previous post, but maybe I answered some of your questions that you brought up in your latest post.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

jkp said:


> When I try to think about the future as an outcome of hypothetical reality I try to imagine the outcome to be a sequence of plausible actions. I dont try to project emotions on to it, I usually want to sum up the outcomes to a mere 2 possible futures (cultures, dogmas).
> 
> I was trying to imagine how Se doms differ than Ni doms by usage of Ni from interpreting two close friends, one INTJ and other ESTP.
> Both seem to take highly of getting information about reality and give some kind of a deeper meaning to it. Ni dom is more being-in-future oriented and is looking outside its own experience of reality in comparison to a negative future outlook of Se dom that is being-in-present oriented. Se dom looks in what must be prevented in order to keep their "self" from experiencing something outside of comfort, being more conservative in their outlook in order to obtain what is meaningful as being a part of them, replacing Ni with Si just as I like to replace Si with Ni (e.g. my first sentence).
> ...


I follow your logic, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Are you saying that INxJs can replace their inferior Se with their next function in line, Ne? I'm really not sure. I thought one's unconscious functions were inaccessible. If it were possible, I'd imagine that Ne would act to loosen Ni's certitude, and make INxJs more open to change, letting all ideas that they come across in, rather than those which Ni is seeking. I've noticed that before. Would that make sense? It's an interesting idea. 

Edit: When I say Ne is an INxJs' unconcious function, I meant to say, shadow function.



jkp said:


> How long is your span of imagining the future, thinking in case of inner-dialog about certain outcomes?
> Do you consider yourself stubborn in case of knowing a future outcome that you can not prove unless one tries to follow your reasoning?
> At what faults has Ni led you believe in a false idea? I know Ni comes often as an insight but you must understand your reasoning behind it. Ni sticks great with F functions but it need good T reasoning to follow.
> Are you ideas often unreasonable when you check with Te Reasoning?
> ...


I'm going to describe the process of how Ni sees things, in terms of your questions, rather than answer them one-by-one, if that's alright. To begin, Ni tends to believe it's always right. Especially on a matter they've deeply considered, and on which they have Ti/Se to justify their conclusions, they won't accept anyone else's version of the truth. This is because Ni forms its ideas independent of Fe-Te/Se, while ironically relying on Fe-Te/Se to form them, in terms of the data they're interested in, if that makes sense. For INFJs, Ni has a tendency to ignore Fe outside opinions or Se data, or will only search for the Se data that confirms their Ni perception once it has already been formed. They'll adopt an attitude of "I'll believe it, when I see it." Until they see it with their own eyes (Se), they will hold firmly to their own version of reality. In extreme cases, though, they will deny reality, ignore proof, even after they have seen it with their own eyes, which usually Ti contradicts Ni, and believe in their position regardless. I think this is the INxJ stubbornness you're referring to seen in its most unhealthy form. This leads to the attitude of others being blind to the "truth," or a belief of, "No one knows what I know." When Ni ignores Fe/Se, they tend to listen only to their own counsel. 

When Ni-Fe is healthy, though, they seek to put their insights into the world, hoping to bring awareness to other people. In this case, they have to consider the objective values of society and other people (Fe) and form their ideas in relation to their extraverted functions, if they ever plan on being listened to. Once they do, they tend to not act themselves to create noticeable change (This is more the path of ENFJs w/ tertiary Se), but instead see their ideas as having the ability to induce change. It was possibly an INxJ who said, "The pen is mightier than the sword." When Ni-Fe is unhealthy, which usually happens after their insights have been ignored by their larger social group, they tend to adopt a haughty, condescending attitude. At this point, they see everyone else as happy commoners interested in shallow, superficial things (inf. Se) while they quietly suffer in their singular quest for the deeper meaning of life (Ni). In their mind, they alone hold the answer and are the superior being. It seems very possible that this dynamic of Ni's relationship to Fe is where Nietszche's idea of The Ubermensch is derived from, as a counter-response to one's feelings of insignificance and inability to act in the world due to inferior Se. One can see this also in his concept of The Will to Power.

For more information on the confirmation bias INxJs are prone to: https://www.personalitypage.com/html/INFJ_per.html
https://www.personalitypage.com/html/INTJ_per.html

I hope I've answered at least some of your questions, and if not, I can try to clarify further. To me, this all makes sense from my observations and in terms of my understanding of the cognitive functions, but I'd like to know if what I've said so far in this post and previous posts is true in your experience with INxJs or aligns with your understanding of theory. Thanks for the questions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

grimoire said:


> I'd love to hear about Ni. Ni has always been the hardest function for me to understand since it seems extremely unconscious and very mysterious--it seems very far away from anything I've experienced. So, as a Ni dom how do you experience Ni in your day to day life? Is it truly as unconscious as I think it is, or are you aware when you're using Ni or not? How do you interpret the world with such a symbolism focused dominant function?
> 
> Hopefully this is what you wanted when you asked for someone to ask you questions, haha.


The thing I think people confuse with Ni is that Ni isn't really the function that generates things on its own, but I see Ni more as a bridge between conscious and unconscious content, so Ni connects the two and as such, unconscious content is able to enter the conscious mind. You can kind of consciously allow the mind to connect to unconscious content by doing some mental drifting and so on (Jung's therapy practice of active imagination would probably fall in this area), but I think forcing content will usually just result in starting at an empty wall and expect some inspiration to occur anyway. It just won't happen. 

In terms of experience, Ni feels kind of cosmic though, I guess? Ethereal, like you are connected to a greater or higher power where you can see the world from a very zoomed out view, not just in terms of space, but also in terms of time. 

As for how to interpret the world, you kind of answered it yourself? You do a lot of interpretation, you see how things look like from the point of view which is directly hidden out of sight. You have a cube for example, but you cannot see all the sides of the cube without rotating it first. Ni does the mental rotating so even though we can at best, literally only see a certain amount of sides of the cube at once, not all of them, Ni kind of pieces all the information together and makes it into a more holistic element of a cube even though we are not able to see that one side, pretty much.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

@mistakenforstranger that is an amazing post. Thank you very much. One part particularly strikes close to home



> When Ni-Fe is unhealthy, which usually happens after their insights have been ignored by their larger social group, *they tend to adopt a haughty, condescending attitude.* At this point, they *see everyone else as happy commoners interested in shallow, superficial things (inf. Se) while they quietly suffer in their singular quest for the deeper meaning of life (Ni).*


That's me alright


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Here's some more to look at, which I touched upon in my last post:

http://personalitycafe.com/infj-art...ress-brings-out-infjs-hidden-personality.html

These parts, in particular:

"INFJs report being puzzled by others’ perception of them as rigid and intractable. This perception may result from their tendency to express their views directly and forcefully. Misinterpretation of their forthright communication style as inflexibility may make others reluctant to present alternatives or argue their own point of view. However, dominant Perceiving types are unlikely to be wedded to their decisions, since they give greater weight to data (perceptions) than to conclusions (judgments). Experience bears this out for the most part. INFJs readily modify their incorrect conclusions when they receive convincing contradictory new information."

"INFJs sometimes assert as “fact” information that may have no basis in reality but that strengthens a conclusion they have arrived at using Introverted Intuition alone. When the validity of such facts is challenged, they may become defensive or simply change the subject."

"Effective dominant Extraverted Sensing types are open to the widest variety of information from the environment—the more the better for them. Fully experiencing the outside world is their greatest pleasure. For an INFJ in the grip of inferior Extraverted Sensing, data from the outside world can seem overwhelming. Facts and details in the world demand the attention of the INFJ in the grip, so he or she obsesses about them."

"Like Extraverted Intuitive types, they are not amenable to suggestions and deny the possibility of alternatives. Stuck in a negative, omnipresent “reality,” they are unable to process contradictory information. They may respond to those who offer it with anger and rejection, adamantly insisting that no alternatives exist. In fact, INFJs agree that the worst thing others can do when they are in this state is to give them advice or try to fix the problem for them."

"Attention to their inferior Sensing and tertiary Thinking may be limited to idiosyncrasies. They may devote a lot of energy to an ill-conceived project and be lost in its details. They then become frustrated and despairing when they find that others are less and less understanding and appreciative of their efforts. This creates a sense of isolation and alienation."

And this short, but accurate description of an INFJ:

Description of the INFJ Personality Type

People with INFJ preferences are great innovators in the field of ideas. *They trust their intuitive insights into the true relationships and meanings of things, regardless of established authority or popularly accepted beliefs.* Problems only stimulate them—the impossible takes a little longer, but not much.

They are independent and individualistic, being governed by inspirations that come through intuition. *These inspirations seem so valid and important that they sometimes have trouble understanding why not everyone accepts them.* Their inner independence is often not conspicuous because INFJs value harmony and fellowship; they work to persuade others to approve of and cooperate with their purposes. They can be great leaders when they devote themselves to carrying out a sound inspiration, attracting followers by their enthusiasm and faith. *They lead by winning (rather than demanding) acceptance of their ideas.* They are most content in work that satisfies both their intuition and their feeling. The possibilities that interest them most concern people. Teaching particularly appeals to them, whether in higher education, or through the arts or ministry. Their intuition provides insight into the deeper meanings of the subject and they take great satisfaction in aiding the development of individual students.

When their interests lie in technical fields, INFJs may be outstanding in science, or research and development. Intuition suggests new approaches to problems and feeling generates enthusiasm that sparks their energies. Intuition powered by feeling may be of immense value in any field if not smothered in a routine job.

Some problems may result from the INFJ’s single-minded devotion to inspirations. *They may see the goal so clearly that they fail to look for other things that might conflict with the goal. It is also important that their feeling is developed, since this will supply necessary judgment. If their judgment is undeveloped, they will be unable to evaluate their own inner vision and will not listen to feedback from others. Instead of shaping their inspirations into effective action, they may merely try to regulate everything (small matters as well as great ones) according to their own ideas, so that little is accomplished.*


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

I did not have the energy to reply as I have not been feeling to well, lacked time and had low creative need. But I did enjoy reading your insights.



mistakenforstranger said:


> I follow your logic, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Are you saying that INxJs can replace their inferior Se with their next function in line, Ne? I'm really not sure. I thought one's unconscious functions were inaccessible. If it were possible, I'd imagine that Ne would act to loosen Ni's certitude, and make INxJs more open to change, letting all ideas that they come across in, rather than those which Ni is seeking. I've noticed that before. Would that make sense? It's an interesting idea.
> Edit: When I say Ne is an INxJs' unconcious function, I meant to say, shadow function.


Its hard for me to describe the connections in my head, would need some kind of mathematical logic to point out the structural connections from my ideas. I try my best.
INTJ and ESTP on Ne:
When an ENFP friend puts the ESTP in a place to think about a hypothetical reality he gets irritated. When he does that to INTJ he sees it as irrelevant due to it not being a reality, Se. His view on reality. His view on reality that is not directly gained through reality as ESTP gets reality. The negativity of Ne being a possible event that must be prevented can actually create concrete Se. From this concrete Se and hypothetical Ne can he create the structure of Ni vision, due to positive and negative emotions.
But this is all but a smallest exemplary part of all the psyches combinations of getting insights. And yes, what you said is the kind of answer I was looking for. My Ne may loosen the Ni but its almost impossible, I must deconstruct his Te with Ti in order for him to expand Ni. I think Ne is being battled with Se since both are being Pe. What my point, I think, was that Ne is indirectly being presented as a form of Se in case of Ni doms.



mistakenforstranger said:


> I'm going to describe the process of how Ni sees things, in terms of your questions, rather than answer them one-by-one, if that's alright. To begin, Ni tends to believe it's always right. Especially on a matter they've deeply considered, and on which they have Ti/Se to justify their conclusions, they won't accept anyone else's version of the truth. This is because Ni forms its ideas independent of Fe-Te/Se, while ironically relying on Fe-Te/Se to form them, in terms of the data they're interested in, if that makes sense. For INFJs, Ni has a tendency to ignore Fe outside opinions or Se data, or will only search for the Se data that confirms their Ni perception once it has already been formed. They'll adopt an attitude of "I'll believe it, when I see it." Until they see it with their own eyes (Se), they will hold firmly to their own version of reality. In extreme cases, though, they will deny reality, ignore proof, even after they have seen it with their own eyes, which usually Ti contradicts Ni, and believe in their position regardless. I think this is the INxJ stubbornness you're referring to seen in its most unhealthy form. This leads to the attitude of others being blind to the "truth," or a belief of, "No one knows what I know." When Ni ignores Fe/Se, they tend to listen only to their own counsel.
> 
> When Ni-Fe is healthy, though, they seek to put their insights into the world, hoping to bring awareness to other people. In this case, they have to consider the objective values of society and other people (Fe) and form their ideas in relation to their extraverted functions, if they ever plan on being listened to. Once they do, they tend to not act themselves to create noticeable change (This is more the path of ENFJs w/ tertiary Se), but instead see their ideas as having the ability to induce change. It was possibly an INxJ who said, "The pen is mightier than the sword." When Ni-Fe is unhealthy, which usually happens after their insights have been ignored by their larger social group, they tend to adopt a haughty, condescending attitude. At this point, they see everyone else as happy commoners interested in shallow, superficial things (inf. Se) while they quietly suffer in their singular quest for the deeper meaning of life (Ni). In their mind, they alone hold the answer and are the superior being. It seems very possible that this dynamic of Ni's relationship to Fe is where Nietszche's idea of The Ubermensch is derived from, as a counter-response to one's feelings of insignificance and inability to act in the world due to inferior Se. One can see this also in his concept of The Will to Power.


What I underlined in your writing was excellent. I think that everything you wrote is so accurate of Ni that I can clearly connect to my INTJ friend, that is why when you talk of Fe and Ti (at least what I underlined), you could just as well talk of Je and Ji.

I understand that my hypothesis will be wrong most of the time or that I will fail to prove what I try to figure out (due to Ne nature). I am interested in the subconscious algorithm that, later, extracts to the conscious effort to explain the reasoning of insights. As you tried to explain in " Ni forms its ideas independent of Fe-Te/Se, while ironically relying on Fe-Te/Se to form them". I think this is a good way to tell it in part but think it goes much deeper. I would say that while reality is being decipher, the subconscious is encrypting, we then try our best to decrypt it with our consciousness.
In logic process: Processing information input; reconstruction, fitting, imagination/creativity; output; deconstruct, reprocess, reconfirm, exemplify. <- Just a quick guess, have not gone deep yet. And every type should have a different process within those basic procedures, or even the the procedures may differ in placement.

What I am also interested is how long Ni doms can think about hypothetical futures.


----------

