# Ni vs. Fi



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I would like to get more clarity on this.

If someone has a "hunch" about something happening; is that Ni or Fi?

I have read confusing interpretations on this.

I am seeking elucidation.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Fi judges internally what and how to value that which is perceives.

Ni perceives essential or conceptual patterns.

So, the problem boils down to what is meant by 'hunch'.

Most interpretations of the word land it squarely in the Perception camp, and thus Ni (or Si.... or even Ne or Se, though the latter two would have very whimsical or off-hand and objective 'hunches'... typically called 'possibilities'). 

However, someone who rationally valued or devalued something or someone might call that impression of their worth a 'hunch'... maybe? ...even then, though, I suspect that Pi has it's role.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Just to throw a wrench into things, according to Jung:



> Intuition has this peculiar quality: it is neither sensation, nor feeling, nor intellectual conclusion, although it may appear in any of these forms.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> > Intuition has this peculiar quality: it is neither sensation, nor feeling, nor intellectual conclusion, although it may appear in any of these forms.
> 
> 
> Just to throw a wrench into things, according to Jung:


Was that intended to be a link, cuz I couldn't click it?


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Touched this in another thread, but I think it is useless to discuss human experiences that pass through the brain and consciousnessbased on just one cognitive function, regardless of which, since they always accompany each other in some ways. Thus, for the individual I believe you have to take the combination into the equation when decoding.

Generalizing each function to explain how it works is one thing, to devote entire contemplations or derived conclusions including emotions to one function can be illusionary at best. However, I can follow such simplifications with interest.... I just do not believe them to be more than parts of the Truth.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ENTPreneur said:


> Touched this in another thread, but I think it is useless to discuss human experiences that pass through the brain and consciousnessbased on just one cognitive function, regardless of which, since they always accompany each other in some ways. Thus, for the individual I believe you have to take the combination into the equation when decoding.
> 
> Generalizing each function to explain how it works is one thing, to devote entire contemplations or derived conclusions including emotions to one function can be illusionary at best. However, I can follow such simplifications with interest.... I just do not believe them to be more than parts of the Truth.


I agree wholeheartedly with this. No function exists in a void, and in most cases they perform as an aggregate. I often think in function combinations rather than in functions for this very reason. 

A cognitive process, outside of stark atomic aspects, will never involve only one function - or be attributable solely to one. Further, a function is heavily 'colored' by it's pairings.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with this. No function exists in a void, and in most cases they perform as an aggregate. I often think in function combinations rather than in functions for this very reason.
> 
> A cognitive process, outside of stark atomic aspects, will never involve only one function - or be attributable solely to one. *Further, a function is heavily 'colored' by it's pairings*.


So, how would Ni-Fe contrast with say Fi-Ne for example?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> Was that intended to be a link, cuz I couldn't click it?


No, I was highlighting a potential metaphorical wrench in separating Intuition from Feeling. Perhaps I should have bolded the phrase rather than underline.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> No, I was highlighting a potential metaphorical wrench in separating Intuition from Feeling. Perhaps I should have bolded the phrase rather than underline.


Well, could you either quote or link the rest of it cuz that would be very helpful but I do understand what you and others are saying; I am just trying to discern what the difference is.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

TreasureTower said:


> Well, could you either quote or link the rest of it cuz that would be very helpful but I do understand what you and others are saying; I am just trying to discern what the difference is.


Most certainly:



> *Intuition
> *
> (From intueri = to look into or upon) is, according to my view, a basic psychological function (v. Function). It is that psychological function which transmits perceptions in an unconscious way. Everything, whether outer or inner objects or their associations, Can be the object of this perception. *Intuition has this peculiar quality: it is neither sensation, nor feeling, nor intellectual conclusion, although it may appear in any of these forms.* Through intuition anyone content is presented as a complete whole, without our being able to explain or discover in what way this content has been arrived at Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, irrespective of the nature of its contents. Like sensation (q.v.) it is an irrational (q.v.) perceptive function. Its contents, like those of sensation, have the character of being given, in contrast to the 'derived' or 'deduced' character of feeling and thinking contents. Intuitive cognition, therefore, possesses an intrinsic character of certainty and conviction which enabled Spinoza to uphold the 'scientia intuitiva' as the highest form of cognition.[61] Intuition has this quality in common with sensation, whose physical foundation is the ground and origin of its certitude. In the same way, the certainty of intuition depends upon a definite psychic matter of fact, of whose origin and state of readiness, however, the subject was quite unconscious.
> 
> ...


Source


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

> Undirected feeling is *feeling-intuition*. Thus, in the stricter sense, only the active, directed feeling should be termed rational: the passive is definitely irrational, since it establishes values without voluntary participation, occasionally even against the subject's intention.


From Jungs Feeling definition.


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

Excuse me for doing this since it is plagiarism from @Dedication ... but it seemed perfect for what you were asking. I found it very amusing. ;-)
*
Se: *It resembles will power.
*Si*: When you describe a past event _with all the little sensational details_ I can really get emersed in it.
*Fe*: You say hi and goodbye, even if you don't like me. In a way, I enjoy that.
*Fi*: Yes, that connection we have, I feel it too, and I don't even need to vocalise it, that makes it all the more magical.
*Te*: Upfront honesty clear and precise, it makes me believe that open communication is the best way to go.
*Ti*: Just extracts new theory's from the world and comes up with rational explanations as to why things are the way they are, I love it.
*Ne*: You goofy motherfucker :tongue:
*Ni*: When we want to be somewhere, you know you how to get there.


----------



## Anon317 (Oct 16, 2013)

it's hard for me to describe Ni since i actually don't know what is it .. all i know that the process of thinking to me isn't 100% thinking .. i just follow a lead of thoughts that can be quite irrational sometimes .. but it's exciting when you arrive to a conclusion following these thoughts that i can't usually trace back , but i have convinced my mind it's the truth so it feels right .. so it's not exactly a feeling ... it's an idea that feels right ? did that make sense ?


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

Simply, Ni doesn't judge - it is an irrational perceptive function; this is in stark contrast to Fi, which is a rational judging function.

In truth, they're worlds apart.


----------



## Deftodon (Jul 27, 2013)

Have you checked this thread yet?

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/163876-ni-hunch.html

I think it could help you... or let you even more confused :tongue:


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

pmj85 said:


> _Simply, Ni doesn't judge_ - it is an irrational perceptive function; this is in stark contrast to Fi, which is a rational judging function.
> 
> In truth, they're worlds apart.


Yeah, that's really the best way to put it. 

To add - INTP and INFP seem to frequently have issues distinguishing between Ji and Ni, and I have noticed, coincidentally, that those who are truly Ji dom have more of an issue deciding how to to assess their type/differences between types (or anything else for that matter) while Ni doms have more of an issue trying to see whether what they have noticed about themselves or someone can be said to be an underlying part of an archetype. The Ji's put more emphasis on their conclusions and assessments or lack thereof as they progress, and the Ni's put more emphasis on trying to trace a pattern over time.

I keep ending up in these "type me" conversations with Ji doms, and am perpetually frustrated by their lack of attention to what they are doing as they are doing it over many posts, or even real-life thinking. It's as if they don't see the value of watching themselves, and using that perception to see themselves as a certain type that locks in after having noticed repeated tendencies of what you find valuable - then again, that's what Ni Je does, not Ji Ne.


----------



## HKitty (Oct 11, 2013)

FWIW, I lead with Fi, and I rarely if ever have "hunches". If anything, I deliberately avoid doing so because I like to be mentally flexible and keep the possibilities open vs. reducing information to a single possibility (Ni?). This is my natural state of being; it helps me to get the overall "big" picture fairly quickly and see connections between various different objects/people/whatever. I attribute this to Ne. (The whole being able to look at multiple viewpoints thing). So, I guess I could say I'm not really interested in or looking to have a "hunch" about something.

Maybe its more of an Ne vs Ni type of thing?


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

I've never heard of an Fi hunch? Someone explain how it's similar to an Ni hunch.


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

Alternatively, read the above posts for the clarification you require.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Deftodon said:


> Have you checked this thread yet?
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/163876-ni-hunch.html
> 
> I think it could help you... or let you even more confused :tongue:


Yes, you're right; that thread was very confusing since the respondents seem to disagree on what constituted Ni/Ne/Ti/Fi.

The one useful takeaway that I got from it is that Fi is rational and judges; where as Ni is irrational (I prefer perceptive) and makes observations.

So, I think that Ni is: I've just had this amazing epiphany and Fi would be: this feels right or wrong?

Ni=observation Fi=feeling JUDGEMENT

So let's say if I were to get a positive or negative sense about someone or something and if just go with it wherever it leads; then that's Ni but if I decide that what this sense is good or bad/right or wrong; than that would be Fi; correct? 

I once was approached by this guy in a gym who unnerved me for reasons that I couldn't make sense of at the time. All I knew, was that I needed to get away from him but I couldn't understand why. I just knew that I would have been scared to be alone with him.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

HKitty said:


> FWIW, I lead with Fi, and I rarely if ever have "hunches". If anything, I deliberately avoid doing so because I like to be mentally flexible and keep the possibilities open vs. reducing information to a single possibility (Ni?). This is my natural state of being; it helps me to get the overall "big" picture fairly quickly and see connections between various different objects/people/whatever. I attribute this to Ne. (The whole being able to look at multiple viewpoints thing). So, I guess I could say I'm not really interested in or looking to have a "hunch" about something.
> 
> Maybe its more of an Ne vs Ni type of thing?


Hmmm, that's really interesting. While I took like to be "mentally flexible", see the "big picture" and "look at multiple viewpoints"; I definitely trust my hunches because they've never been wrong - not even once. That doesn't always mean that I act on them but I always regret ignoring my intuition because it never leads me astray.

I think it's also interesting that you're an EII-Ne. I typed myself as that but it never really fit and your post really helps to clarify that I really am an IEI-Ni. My problem is that I often can confuse anxiety with intuition. While I often try to make my decisions on logic and facts; sometimes you either can't make sense of things logically or your simply don't have enough time. Malcolm Gladwell talks a lot about this in _Blink_ and Daniel Khaneman in _Thinking Fast and Slow_. Basically, our first sense of something or hunches vs. logical, factual decision making.

So, with me: I will first get a sense about a situation/person/etc. and I will often not know what it means until either/both more "information" - including but not limited to stronger hunches - or until I start to see a pattern. I do that all the time: look for patterns and try to figure out where they lead.


----------

