# difference Ni and Ti, examples



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're going for. Are you suggesting that an intuition can't really be put down on paper as a concrete thought?


Something like that. I just think the message gets lost. Elsewise people wouldn't be confusing Ni and Ti.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

As I recently explained in another post about Ni, introverted intuition manifests _before_ any kind of thought process, or at least, _independent_ of any ongoing thought process, as if completely unrelated to it.

For example, I may be working on some mundane task, such as a video game or watching a movie, when out of nowhere the solution to something I had been thinking about earlier strikes. Usually whatever I am directly experiencing "triggers" these inspirations for any number of irrational reasons. I won't bother trying to rationalize how this works, it's like I'm looking at my neighbor's dog barking and suddenly I understand something about grilled cheese sandwiches, even though I wasn't thinking about grilled cheese sandwiches at that moment (although I might have been earlier, and frustrated by it for some reason).

Or, I may have what appears to me to be a more-or-less crystal clear vision and understanding of an idea from the beginning, which emerges all at once in my mind in literally no time whatsoever, devoid of doubt, or any need to question it. From that point I proceed to make the decision on whether or not it is worth it to me to take the time to externalize it. I actually cannot describe to you the number of really clever insights I've had into subject matters that I've come across that I just... threw away... because I haven't the time or the motivation to engage them all. Most of the really awesome inspirations I've had, I can't even remember, because I just didn't care enough about them to do anything with them.

In contrast to all of that, Ti is more of an ongoing thought process being fed by inspiration. Therefore it doesn't begin with information - information is what it lacks and what it needs. Intuition is a perceiving function, and a source of that information. Thus, Ti begins with an incomplete idea, and either remains with it (much to the chagrin of people such as myself who try to reason with Ti-leads), or recognizes the necessity of information and goes looking for it somewhere. That's when inspiration strikes, and then it retreat back into itself to process the inspiration and assign it some kind of subjective meaning.


----------



## Rachel Wood (Mar 25, 2015)

PaladinX said:


> Intuition here still sounds like judging functions at work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you misunderstood my meaning - of course Thinking and Feeling are two very different things, and from a conceptual perspective there's no reason they should be confused. But when it comes to typing individuals, like celebrities, the axis a person is using (eg Fi-Te) often show up long before you can really decide on "Thinker or Feeler" or "S/N".

Myers used letters yes, BUT she fully understood and accepted there were functions beneath them (because she was working from Jung). Keirsey is the one who just ignores function theory a lot of the time - the "temperaments" are the basis of his typology, not functions.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

@PaladinX I have a hard time reconciling with that. To the very least I would say that many intuitions can easily be described in language/thoughts, and if not, well, we might as well put Thinking (and the other functions) through the same scrutiny and say that a Thought in the brain cannot fully be captured in a sentence but only hinted at. 
@Abraxas when you describe it like that it mostly resembles what in my experience I would call "a sudden rush of creativity" which in my case is mostly in an Ne-fashion where multiple ideas just keep coming (like if making a humorous text, creating characters or writing poetry) and it's very energizing and similar to being in a flow state.
I have forgotten the name now, but some English poet said that poems were something that came flying to her; she could see it sweeping in over the fields like a storm towards her, and when they did she had to "catch it" by getting to a paper and write it down before it flew away into the distance. 
Do you think this resembles what you're describing?


----------



## KillingTroubleShooter (Mar 25, 2015)

Abraxas said:


> For example, I may be working on some mundane task, such as a video game or watching a movie, when out of nowhere the solution to something I had been thinking about earlier strikes. Usually whatever I am directly experiencing "triggers" these inspirations for any number of irrational reasons. I won't bother trying to rationalize how this works, it's like I'm looking at my neighbor's dog barking and suddenly I understand something about grilled cheese sandwiches, even though I wasn't thinking about grilled cheese sandwiches at that moment (although I might have been earlier, and frustrated by it for some reason).


Cool. Reminds me of Dr. House.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> @_PaladinX_ I have a hard time reconciling with that. To the very least I would say that many intuitions can easily be described in language/thoughts, and if not, well, we might as well put Thinking (and the other functions) through the same scrutiny and say that a Thought in the brain cannot fully be captured in a sentence but only hinted at.
> @_Abraxas_ when you describe it like that it mostly resembles what in my experience I would call "a sudden rush of creativity" which in my case is mostly in an Ne-fashion where multiple ideas just keep coming (like if making a humorous text, creating characters or writing poetry) and it's very energizing and similar to being in a flow state.
> I have forgotten the name now, but some English poet said that poems were something that came flying to her; she could see it sweeping in over the fields like a storm towards her, and when they did she had to "catch it" by getting to a paper and write it down before it flew away into the distance.
> Do you think this resembles what you're describing?


Intuition isn't an inference that happens consciously, although it often manifests as a vision or a concept to the perceiver that contains information, all of that takes place unconsciously (to them). The judgment of an intuitive type operates autonomously most of the time, with only partial involvement of the conscious ego in the auxiliary process.

What this means, essentially, is that even if I receive a flash of insight into something, it is necessarily an inference that occurred somehow, albeit without my awareness, and this inference can come with a sense of strong value, or a sense of strong validity. It is difficult to pry apart the unconscious judgment taking place from the intuitive perception, because to the intuitive, all they are conscious of is the perception itself. Meanwhile, their judgment, and the sensation from which the intuition ultimately was derived, are _undifferentiated_ in the unconscious - which means, in lay terms, "all mixed up" with each other and hard for that individual to tell apart themselves (because they are unconscious of them).

Jung believed in what he called "archetypes" and most of his work developing analytical psychology was done involving them. When he describes the intuitive function, he explains how it works briefly in Psychological Types. What he says is that intuition is fed from the unconscious "primordial images". Later he would go on to more clearly define and revise "primordial images" to mean "archetypes." Jungian archetypes are extremely abstract templates and generalizations that describe some "primordial" aspect of our existence - aspects that repeat themselves all over time and space and human history (and perhaps even the history of the cosmos). Concepts like transcendence, death, woman/male, duality, time, fate, war, thirst, progress, good/evil, etc. These are all archetypes. To put it into more philosophical terms, they are the _a priori_ foundations of the psyche.

However, Jung was adamant that it is impossible to perceive the archetypes themselves directly. Rather, every single thing I just listed above (death, duality, etc), are merely _images_ of the archetypes that exist in the collective unconscious of humanity, and thus are accessible to every single one of us through things like dream-states, meditation, and of course, intuition. However, Jung also makes one other very important definition of introverted intuition in particular - that it sees the archetypes played out _in the unconscious of the individual_. That point is _crucial_ to understanding Ni.

Because the _personal unconscious_ of an individual is comprised of every memory and complex formed around those experiences that make up their own life, when the _introverted intuitive_ type looks inward and sees the archetypes played out in their own unconscious, they see them being played out through their own experiences. _That is the great mysterious secret about introverted intuition._

And now that you realize it, it's not that mysterious at all really. It's quite easy to understand what is happening in the mind of the dominant intuitive. And it is no different for Ne. Ne merely recognizes the archetypes happening in the _external world_, which is in every way the same as the introverted intuitive Ni-type who recognizes the archetypes happening in the _internal world_. You see?


----------



## giraffegator (Dec 28, 2014)

@Abraxas,
I have the same experience with my Ni - I will just suddenly get the 'perfect idea' seemingly out of nowhere.
I think one way it differs from Ne is that it s synthesising as opposed to multiplying - it comes up with one perception that rolls all the previous perceptions into one. Ne starts with one perception and unrolls it into several possibilities.

Not sure about Ti, I don't think I have it.

PS I think the Se/Si difference is also partly about synthesising/multiplying. My Si dom husband is all about the synthesising of all his knowledge and experiences into one overarching awesome structure.


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> Intuition isn't an inference that happens consciously, although it often manifests as a vision or a concept to the perceiver that contains information, all of that takes place unconsciously (to them). The judgment of an intuitive type operates autonomously most of the time, with only partial involvement of the conscious ego in the auxiliary process.
> 
> What this means, essentially, is that even if I receive a flash of insight into something, it is necessarily an inference that occurred somehow, albeit without my awareness, and this inference can come with a sense of strong value, or a sense of strong validity. It is difficult to pry apart the unconscious judgment taking place from the intuitive perception, because to the intuitive, all they are conscious of is the perception itself. Meanwhile, their judgment, and the sensation from which the intuition ultimately was derived, are _undifferentiated_ in the unconscious - which means, in lay terms, "all mixed up" with each other and hard for that individual to tell apart themselves (because they are unconscious of them).
> 
> ...


I bow to the well-written and informative reply. 

My problem with this matter is not that the machinery that makes an intuition pop up in consciousness is far outside of our awareness, but that when the end-result enters our consciousness as an intuition, it won't be on equal terms with other types of thought (like an image, awareness of an emotion, or a piece of language). It appears to me in what @PaladinX says and what you say in your first post is that intuition is in a different ballpark than what is ordinarily called thought, and that simply surprises me. 
I'm easily persuaded that intuition often comes in a visceral and ineffable form as you first described it, but on a day-to-day basis I treat most (in an everyday-sense) ideas and hunches as a form of intuition. I'm glad you say it often manifests as a concept or vision since it means I'm not alone in the world about that understanding. 

What you said in your first post in here simply reminded me of how many poets and writers explain their moments of inspiration, so I had to throw it out there. 

And I, at least believe that, I get what you're writing, except for the last paragraph about seeing archetypes in the external world which I haven't quite scratched my head enough to fully comprehend. My immediate understanding is, for instance, if I (Ne-type) look at a picture of a landscape, I might somehow access the archetype of war and therefore imagine a French cavalry with high-held sabres running across the fields. An archetype has thus been seen/put in the external world by means of my unconscious. I just have a hunch that such an exemplification would be too easy to describe it.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> And I, at least believe that, I get what you're writing, except for the last paragraph about seeing archetypes in the external world which I haven't quite scratched my head enough to fully comprehend. My immediate understanding is, for instance, if I (Ne-type) look at a picture of a landscape, I might somehow access the archetype of war and therefore imagine a French cavalry with high-held sabres running across the fields. An archetype has thus been seen/put in the external world by means of my unconscious. I just have a hunch that such an exemplification would be too easy to describe it.


Yes, that might need a bit more exposition.

Jung believed that the archetypes aren't just _a priori_ foundations of the mind. He believed they were also _a posteriori_ foundations of the physical world. In effect, Jung believed that the archetypes were _transcendental_, in that they form the "blueprint" if you will, for every _nomenal_ form, tangible or intangible.

When he speaks of intuition being drawn toward the archetypes, and we talk about intuition having the attitude of extraversion, then it is implied that the intuition of an extravert is drawn toward the archetypal forms of nature. That suggests that there really is no "breadth versus depth" difference between Ne and Ni, rather, Ne "reads into" the many natural forms perceived in the world in the same way Ni "reads into" the unconscious forms perceived in the mind. It is not a matter of divergence versus convergence - and even in Gifts Differing, Myers-Briggs does not make such a distinction between the two forms of intuition. I must be honest and admit, I actually have no idea why this distinction has any validity, so I omit it in my own understanding, because it seems to have no basis in Jung or the original MBTI literature.

So, if I am correct in my understanding, then I am correct in my description of Ne when I say that it is no different from the way an introvert experiences their intuition, only, it is derived from external objects, rather than from objects of the mind. And I suspect I _am_ right, not only because my understanding supports the inference, but because I have a strong hunch that's really the case. It definitely explains why I see myself _mirrored_ in ENTP types, who lead with intuition the same as me, only, they direct their attention onto external forces and events and such "objective" matters, giving them excellent insight into everything trending, as well as insight into how the world really works.

I get along very well with most ENPs, thinkers and feelers, as a matter of fact (although I tend to find ENTPs better "mind-mates" because we just have so much in common). I have a good friend I've known for about 9 years who I am fairly certain is an ENTP, and he is exceptionally wise and insightful whenever we start discussing things like politics, economics, sociology, or anything having to do with how the world works. And to contrast with this, he highly respects my insight into all of these things as well, except that I tend to take a subjective approach to our discussions, and thus, all of my insights tend to emerge only when we discuss things I have direct experience with (Se), or I've researched already (Te). While he rambles about his insights, I tend to be the one who reminds him of what is generally considered to be true, and then he will try to encourage me to look beyond that knowledge - which is something I have no trouble doing anyway and have already done in most cases - and so usually I have to admit to him that I actually agree with what he has to say, and that I'm merely pointing out what scientists generally believe, and that of course does wonders for his ego because then we have that warm feeling of camaraderie where we are both indirectly encouraging each other's dominant function by just being ourselves.

It's actually kind of a remarkable cyclic process, in which his intuition is "jump-starting" my intuition, because he has all this insight and awareness of a lot of information "out there" in the world that I just never cared enough about to investigate, and it will trigger my own insights, which I will then mull over for a bit, trying to confirm them against some established body of knowledge (because I don't want to just spit them out without any basis and sound like a crank - even though I know he wouldn't mind, it bothers me), and if I can find some fact or point of reference that I can use to enumerate and explain my insight, I'll share it with him and then he becomes very excited to hear what I'm saying because it gives him more to process. The only time that it ever tends to start to wear him down is when I'm unwilling to just go with his hunches, because my insights are restricted to the _known_, whereas his insights go beyond the known and are based on pure reason (Ti). He feels more comfortable making inferences waaaaaaay into the theoretical realm with respect to external systems, whereas I don't. Instead, the more inspired I become, the more compelled I feel to research and study objective models before I "jump the gun", as he seems to be doing from my perspective.

But in reality, the truth is, he's very whimsical. So often everything he says one day is forgotten the next, and where I might go do a lot of homework and study something that came up, later when I bring it up again he might not remember, or, if he does, he'll be excited to hear what I have to say because it inevitably challenges him to either try to rationalize his insights better (whenever I come up with negating information), or it confirms that he may be on the right track, and then he feels proud of himself, which I kind of admire, and I feel like my work was validated as well.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

linatet said:


> Hey everyone!
> I still don't have a clue of the difference between Ni and Ti. I have read more descriptions than I can count and they just don't clarify it. *If you could help with some example or a more tangible contrasting explanation.*
> I am starting to believe this theory of cognitive functions is nonsensical, no one really knows what these things are. And even when they think they do, if you put them together to talk about it each person will have a very different idea of what they are. You could argue that this is because everyone is different etc, but then what's the point of these concepts? (Anyway, not the point of the thread)


Ni is basically abstract concepts and models. All cohesive ideologies are Ni. Lord of the Rings universe where everything is 'of a piece' is Ni. Ni is just any conceptual model arrived at by synthesizing sources, no matter what the sources are. Se observation can lead to an Ni model in some cases. 

For example, if you read 10 books about farming, and at the end had a picture in your head of the 'abstract' of a farm, that would be Ni putting together the commonalities of the 10 books and stitching them into a single model.

It can be wrong or right. It depends entirely on whether the original source material was wrong or right. 

Ti, by contrast, I understand less well. I've heard it described as a logic tree of deduction, where "If x is true, then y is true" type statements and the converse are considered, and step by step a logical chain is constructed. Given the premises, it must be accurate. 

Ti Ne users usually place a lot of stock on precise definitions. 

Someone writing from Ni, by contrast, is more describing an image, or a 'vibe' about how something works, so it is a lot more fuzzy and the precise word usage is less important. Also Ni sometimes assumes that it has a way to iron out some internal inconsistency without actually being able to do so; it will 'feel' like there is a solution, whereas Ti would work out the solution consciously and outright know if it was right or not.

Once Ni has developed a model (also called an archetype, confusingly) for something, it tends to stick with that to solve every problem, while occasionally producing a marginal improvement to the model.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Rachel Wood said:


> The Keirsey approach.
> 
> Well, that's fine, but you need to make it very clear that you are typing using a very different form of typology than most people.
> 
> I'd say it's MUUUUCH easier to decide if someone is an Fi-Te/Fe-Ti user than a Thinker/Feeler - but whatever works for you.





Rachel Wood said:


> I think you misunderstood my meaning - of course Thinking and Feeling are two very different things, and from a conceptual perspective there's no reason they should be confused. But when it comes to typing individuals, like celebrities, the axis a person is using (eg Fi-Te) often show up long before you can really decide on "Thinker or Feeler" or "S/N".
> 
> Myers used letters yes, BUT she fully understood and accepted there were functions beneath them (because she was working from Jung). Keirsey is the one who just ignores function theory a lot of the time - the "temperaments" are the basis of his typology, not functions.


Assuming somebody's talking about the Keirsey of Please Understand Me and Please Understand Me II, the notion that Keirsey's "temperaments" are essentially a separate system from the MBTI has more to do with _market positioning_ than historical fact — and if you're interested, you can read more about that here.

As for the so-called "function axes"... the idea that someone is either a "Ti/Fe" type or a "Te/Fi" type is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks, and — unlike the dichotomies — has no respectable body of evidence behind it.

For more on the bogosity of the "tandems" idea, see this post, this post and this post.

And just in case those posts whet your appetite for a fuller course of cognitive function mythbusting, you'll find that in this post and the posts it links to (directly and indirectly).


----------



## Rachel Wood (Mar 25, 2015)

reckful said:


> Assuming somebody's talking about the Keirsey of Please Understand Me and Please Understand Me II, the notion that Keirsey's "temperaments" are essentially a separate system from the MBTI has more to do with _market positioning_ than historical fact — and if you're interested, you can read more about that here.
> 
> As for the so-called "function axes"... the idea that someone is either a "Ti/Fe" type or a "Te/Fi" type is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks, and — unlike the dichotomies — has no respectable body of evidence behind it.
> 
> ...


We'll have to just agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## chad0 (Feb 7, 2015)

ni is that ah ha moments that come from the subconsious
ti is putting piece by piece until the whole is complete


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

linatet said:


> Hey everyone!
> I still don't have a clue of the difference between Ni and Ti. I have read more descriptions than I can count and they just don't clarify it. *If you could help with some example or a more tangible contrasting explanation.*
> I am starting to believe this theory of cognitive functions is nonsensical, no one really knows what these things are. And even when they think they do, if you put them together to talk about it each person will have a very different idea of what they are. You could argue that this is because everyone is different etc, but then what's the point of these concepts? (Anyway, not the point of the thread)


I had the same question when I first came here. Simple answer - introverted thinking is judgement, it is about output, even if the output is simply an opinion or policy, or internal dialog. Ni is perception, this is about your intake or you could say it is an experience filter. Nobody can "see" everything there is on every level every second of their life so we filter, and this makes up a significant part of personality.

The way I look at it for me, my Ti, is like Ni that makes noise in my head. Jung calls perceiving functions pre-language.
intuitive, introverted perceiving builds up over time, a sense of the laws of nature, the need to boil information down to essential elements. One reason you hear about "the INTJ death stare" is they have a sense of how things work or how things are without having the words handy to describe the experience. This tends to be holistic, when it pops, the intuition has been confirmed in reality.

Ti is pulling experience, logic, causes and effects, mental models or if, then statements into verbal order chunk by chunk until a plausible theory is in place. The internal consistency as a system, to develop methods and usefulness, to manage situations or get results (a working model) with conceptual understanding is more important than confirming any pre-existing truth, or working from absolutes.
------------
One reason you have conflicting answers here is depth and purpose of study on the topic. MBTI is concerned with how to test people and get confirmation of testing. Those of us who prefer to emphasize Jungian descriptions of the eight functions tend to be looking for a map that helps us explain differences in communication and individual understanding or experiences.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> I had the same question when I first came here. Simple answer - introverted thinking is judgement, it is about output, even if the output is simply an opinion or policy, or internal dialog. Ni is perception, this is about your intake or you could say it is an experience filter. Nobody can "see" everything there is on every level every second of their life so we filter, and this makes up a significant part of personality.
> 
> The way I look at it for me, my Ti, is like Ni that makes noise in my head. Jung calls perceiving functions pre-language.
> intuitive, introverted perceiving builds up over time, a sense of the laws of nature, the need to boil information down to essential elements. One reason you hear about "the INTJ death stare" is they have a sense of how things work or how things are without having the words handy to describe the experience. This tends to be holistic, when it pops, the intuition has been confirmed in reality.
> ...




Wait so is Ti internal dialogue or is that thinking in general?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

The internal dialog is a distinguishing characteristic between Ti and Ni. Ni will go to extroverted judgement for clarification.
Si, will go over past scenarios as if reliving them. Fi may have it's own internal dialog but I'm not sure how that works because tastes or values, well, the person is still aware of an inner self doing this evaluating . . . . . ask Fi dom's on that one?


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> The internal dialog is a distinguishing characteristic between Ti and Ni. Ni will go to extroverted judgement for clarification.
> Si, will go over past scenarios as if reliving them. Fi may have it's own internal dialog but I'm not sure how that works because tastes or values, well, the person is still aware of an inner self doing this evaluating . . . . . ask Fi dom's on that one?


And the extroverted attitudes don't have internal dialogue?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Ksara said:


> And the extroverted attitudes don't have internal dialogue?


You might have to ask Te or Fe doms, but as an example an ESFJ acquaintance of mine is usually using Si to share experiences; her Fe is focused on what is going on in the outside world even though it is her dominant function.

When you talk to an INTJ, they show you proof, studies, and quotes. Ni compels them to think but the thinking means research out in the world - not talking to yourself (Ti), coming up with the right phrase to piece a theory together for example. Ti is working with stored information and re-working it or applying it to Ne or Se motivations.

Sometimes Ne-Ti and Ni-Te can look like they are doing the same thing but they are reverse engineering processes to each other.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> You might have to ask Te or Fe doms, but as an example an ESFJ acquaintance of mine is usually using Si to share experiences; her Fe is focused on what is going on in the outside world even though it is her dominant function.
> 
> When you talk to an INTJ, they show you proof, studies, and quotes. Ni compels them to think but the thinking means research out in the world - not talking to yourself (Ti), coming up with the right phrase to piece a theory together for example. Ti is working with stored information and re-working it or applying it to Ne or Se motivations.


It just seems so...simple.
I live in inner dialogue land, so by your account that would make me Ti dom.
I can say that is where my attention is most of the time, or if not I am visualising.

I have made a new thread about this so I'm not derailing any further.


----------

