# Ne vs. Ni The Sequel



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

I don’t really like my old article anymore. I feel as though I have a better understanding of Ne and Ni than I did when I wrote that other article a long time ago. At any rate, I received some criticism about bias in the last one, so I am going to do my best to remove all of it in this article.

*Introduction*

I think one of the common misconceptions about all of the functions is that extraversion and introversion create two different functions. On the contrary, they are simply different attitudes to the same function. It’s like two sides of the same coin except you can’t purchase anything with it. 

A great example of this is if we consider a man and a woman. Men and women have many fundamental differences like…well they’re fundamental and different. So let’s say that you have a man and a woman, but both of them have sassy attitudes. Sure their behavior looks similar, but if you look—erm—under the surface, you will notice they are very…different. Now imagine two men or two women (whichever way you swing, really). Let’s say one has a sassy attitude, but the other’s attitude is angsty. They would both appear very different, but under the surface, they are the same.

You may think of cognitive functions in a similar way. Ne and Ni are not separate functions. Rather they are two sides of the same coin. Fundamentally, they are the same, but the difference in attitude makes them appear very different. Like with sassy vs. angsty, these differences are substantive and not just surface-level. However, one must understand intuition before the attitudes can make sense.

*Intuition*

This really is the tough part to grasp. Even as an intuitive dominant individual it can be a challenge to explain. Fundamentally, intuition is what connects things together based on the abstract. This can take the form of visualizing the structure of abstract concepts to knowing what will occur if A, B, and C happen. That isn’t to say that intuition is prophetic. It simply is capable of perceiving the what-ifs and could-bes of the world. In that way it is more like a built in statistician than a seer.

In that way, intuition is looking at possible connections between different ideas, things, etc. It doesn’t see the future, but it sees what could be in the future—different and the same. This isn’t like sensing wherein this thing has repeatedly happened over and over, therefore it will probably happen again (disclaimer: I know that’s more Si than Se, but bear with me). Rather, when there is an existing framework within the individual that is the same or similar to what is being observed, intuition manifests what should be and compares it to what is happening; or it has two or more separate frameworks and sees how those things fit together to make a brand new framework.

Much how sensing might fit the pegs to the holes (OH GOD PLEASE DON’T TAKE THAT AS TYPIST IT’S JUST AN EXAMPLE), intuition fits together abstract pieces of information. In that way, intuition is quite simple. If you would excuse the conjecture, I think the confusion about intuition is how that goes about. Largely, that has to do with the attitudes of introversion and extraversion.

*Introverted Intuition*

This is one of those things that you will struggle with until you finally get it, and when you do, you’re just like, “Wow that was so simple!” The reason behind that is because intuition being directed inwards creates a somewhat peculiar and not at all conventional nature of cognition. It is also not quite as magical as people seem to make it out to be. Actually, it’s not really magical at all. That’s not a knock on Ni users at all. It is simply confirming what so many Ni dominants have told me: “I don’t know why people make a big deal out of it.”

If you recall, I mentioned that intuition relies on networks of information to determine the most probable eventuality of a situation. In the case of intuition directed inward, this network is found in intuition itself. In many ways it is like sensation directed inward—past experiences make subjective impressions based on what is perceived to be most relevant. Largely, this is unconscious. Let us remember that we are talking about Ni rather than people who have Ni in their “top four” functions. Naturally, people remember certain things and forget certain things. 

To give a good example of this, @Cetanu described a situation during his childhood in which he was learning to ride a bike. He recalled that the first time he rode the bike, he was rather clumsy in doing so, falling multiple times. The second time he rode his bike, he recalls doing so perfectly. This illustrates two things. While he didn’t remember or even consciously notice the kinesthetic aspects of balance and momentum that are required for riding a bike, he seemed to pick up on it very quickly. 

Not consciously noticing these things, but the lessons and principles still remaining are what I like to call introverted intuition’s “study” mode. The attitude of intuition focusing inward means that, since the subject is being perceived, there is this blank canvas upon the self upon which the framework is painted.

From this framework, introverted intuition can begin to model eventualities in reality and begin to pick the best one.  As the framework becomes more comprehensive, the models formed and eventualities chosen become more accurate and precise. In @Cetanu’s case, this was riding a bike. I like to call this introverted intuition’s “application” mode. This is the part that is confusing because we tend to think that practice makes perfect. Introverted intuition largely skips practice and translates lessons learned directly into instinct. That isn’t to say that introverted intuitives (anyone with introverted intuition) are not or cannot be habitual. It’s simply that, for certain things, practice isn’t needed in order to become proficient for introverted intuition. Time still improves their skills, but it just happens faster.

The study mode and application mode are not discrete states of being in which it’s just one or the other though. In many situations, there is an unexpected variable or piece missing that Ni cannot account for. In this instance, application now requires study, which will lead back to application. This can happen quickly because study could also be simply taking a scientific wild-assed guess about what the piece is.

In short, introverted intuition is a lens through which the world fits this framework.

If I could imagine a monologue for Ni, it would be as follows:

_”Initially, things are confusing, but I am curious and want to know about them. It’s like a maze, really. I prefer to study the maze top-down. Are there minotaurs, is Medusa in there? I want to look at it top-down before I head in. When I do that, there are no corners or turns or obstacles. When I stand at the entrance, I can see straight to the end.”_

*Extraverted Intuition*

If introverted intuition forms connections based on what is internal, extraverted intuition forms connections based on what is external. This can take many different forms. Due to the outward focus of extraversion—like all instances of extraversion—extraverted intuition desires to view the world empirically. Because of this desire, a proper environment is needed or else extraverted intuition cannot thrive.

Unlike introverted intuition, extraverted intuition has no built-in mechanism that draws on the past. Lacking this mechanism, environment means everything for extraverted intuition. The environment is the framework. In order to intuit, there must be observable data about the world, and the penchant for what-ifs and could-bes lends extraverted intuition to be quite experimental in its nature.

This creates an interesting paradox. Extraverted intuition craves something new to learn, and it learns very quickly. Extraverted intuition does not separate study and application like introverted intuition does. Instead, both steps are one and the same. For this reason, dominant and auxiliary extraverted intuitives can seem flighty and appear to lack stability. In actuality, extraverted intuition involves a process of perpetual motion that meanders and wanders. The next connection is what is relevant to what is being learned because what is being learned is not assigned a category by extraverted intuition. The world simply is and could be. Since intuition is abstract in nature, this outward focus does not distinguish two different objects based on their physical properties, so knowledge will blend and cohere based on the abstract. This is how extraverted intuition gets its reputation for creativity.

It is the way that two or more things are similar that extraverted intuition will form a connection. How two things do not go together will rarely engage extraverted intuition. It does not care about how two objects are abstractly dissimilar because nothing can be done with that. What is engaging is how two objects can relate.

If we consider the nature of Se, we could surmise that Se would be uninterested in an environment that isn’t physically stimulating like a plain white room. Likewise, extraverted intuition is uninterested in an environment in which connections cannot be made. This is because in both situations, engagement of the mind with the world is not being encouraged or even made possible. That kind of engagement is paramount to a healthy environment for extraversion.

In all forms, extraverted intuition can be like a freight train with no brakes. This does not imply aptitude, rather the nature in which extraverted intuition operates. Extraverted intuition requires the next connection. When fully engaged, this perpetuates and feeds off of its own energy.

If I could come up with a monologue for extraverted intuition, it would be this:

_”Everything I need to know is in the world around me. I don’t really want to see an end because the journey is so much more engaging. There is no finite beginning or end. I just want to know everything there is to know. Some people think I am flighty or indecisive. In reality, I just see so much so quickly that they can’t keep up. A new perspective comes around, and suddenly the entire picture changes.”_


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> To give a good example of this, @_Cetanu_ described a situation during his childhood in which he was learning to ride a bike. He recalled that the first time he rode the bike, he was rather clumsy in doing so, falling multiple times. The second time he rode his bike, he recalls doing so perfectly. This illustrates two things. While he didn’t remember or even consciously notice the kinesthetic aspects of balance and momentum that are required for riding a bike, he seemed to pick up on it very quickly.
> 
> Not consciously noticing these things, but the lessons and principles still remaining are what I like to call introverted intuition’s “study” mode. The attitude of intuition focusing inward means that, since the subject is being perceived, there is this blank canvas upon the self upon which the framework is painted.
> 
> From this framework, introverted intuition can begin to model eventualities in reality and begin to pick the best one. As the framework becomes more comprehensive, the models formed and eventualities chosen become more accurate and precise. In @_Cetanu_’s case, this was riding a bike. I like to call this introverted intuition’s “application” mode. This is the part that is confusing because we tend to think that practice makes perfect. Introverted intuition largely skips practice and translates lessons learned directly into instinct. That isn’t to say that introverted intuitives (anyone with introverted intuition) are not or cannot be habitual. It’s simply that, for certain things, practice isn’t needed in order to become proficient for introverted intuition. Time still improves their skills, but it just happens faster.



So, if I understand correctly, you think that Ni subconsciously imprints sensory information onto the user's mind. You call this the "'study' mode", and while in this "mode" the Ni user's mind creates a framework of principles from this information while simultaneously focusing on the "subject." By 'subject' do you mean conscious reflection upon the Self, an abstracted image or idea, or both/either or? This is an innovative way to look at Ni, though. I haven't read this idea in existing type theory, but, ultimately I can't think of a reason to say "yay or nay." I'm curious to hear more self-identified Ni's perspectives. However, I wonder, do you attribute this process to Ni being on a spectrum with Se? Like how I've seen some users here say things like, "Se takes in a bunch of raw, unconscious data and Ni 'puts it together'"--or something to that effect. 

Also, I wonder about the idea of creating a framework from which probability can be determined. This sounds more consistent with existing ideas about Ti, especially from Nardi and Thomson. If Ni is to remain an "irrational" function, I can see your basic description of Intuition being accurate: _"intuition is looking at possible connections between different ideas, things, etc. It doesn’t see the future, but it sees what could be in the future [...]" _and _"It simply is capable of perceiving the what-ifs and could-bes of the world"_. However, when you apply probability, or the "eventualities in reality", *especially "pick[ing] the best one*, in addition to being able to see multiple possibilities/perspectives, that seems to move very close to the realm of Judgment. If you don't think that's the case, how would you define Ti?

Finally, I think your description of Ne is very accurate (meaning it's consistent with Jung and Thomson, but I'm not saying that any of these definitions are "right"or "wrong").


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

surgery said:


> So, if I understand correctly, you think that Ni subconsciously imprints sensory information onto the user's mind. You call this the "'study' mode", and while in this "mode" the Ni user's mind creates a framework of principles from this information while simultaneously focusing on the "subject." By 'subject' do you mean conscious reflection upon the Self, an abstracted image or idea, or both/either or? This is an innovative way to look at Ni, though. I haven't read this idea in existing type theory, but, ultimately I can't think of a reason to say "yay or nay."




I don't necessarily know if it is sensory information or abstract information. That is difficult to determine since my personal experience with Ni consciously is limited to a couple of occasions only. However, in studying and interacting with individuals with Ni, this is something that I have noticed. In order for perception to be subjective and pertinent to the self, I think there must be some form of an existing framework that is irrelevant to the collective unconscious or the empirical universe. I think you see this very clearly in Si and Ni, and similarly in Ti and Fi; thus it is an attribute of introversion rather than just introverted intuition.



> I'm curious to hear more self-identified Ni's perspectives. However, I wonder, do you attribute this process to Ni being on a spectrum with Se? Like how I've seen some users here say things like, "Se takes in a bunch of raw, unconscious data and Ni 'puts it together'"--or something to that effect.


Sure, and it was very difficult not to talk about Se or Si for that matter. However, while Se provides Ni with objective perception, it doesn't provide Ni with all of its information. Likewise, Si doesn't provide Ne with all of its information. The magnitude with which the corresponding sensing function provide depends on a type's function order.



> Also, I wonder about the idea of creating a framework from which probability can be determined. This sounds more consistent with existing ideas about Ti, especially from Nardi and Thomson. If Ni is to remain an "irrational" function, I can see your basic description of Intuition being accurate: _"intuition is looking at possible connections between different ideas, things, etc. It doesn’t see the future, but it sees what could be in the future [...]" _and _"It simply is capable of perceiving the what-ifs and could-bes of the world"_. However, when you apply probability, or the "eventualities in reality", *especially "pick[ing] the best one*, in addition to being able to see multiple possibilities/perspectives, that seems to move very close to the realm of Judgment. If you don't think that's the case, how would you define Ti?


I don't think probability is to be associated with Ti. If intuition can see possibilities, then those possibilities have probabilities associated with them. For something to be possible, it simply must be have a probability greater than zero. As intuition matures, possibilities become more realistic due to the increased probability that an event will occur. I could be wrong about this though. This could be an aspect of judging, but I don't think it's exclusively Ti, otherwise 4 intuitive types would be collectively spinning in space.



> Finally, I think your description of Ne is very accurate (meaning it's consistent with Jung and Thomson, but I'm not saying that any of these definitions are "right"or "wrong").


I certainly hope so. :tongue:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*@MegaTuxRacer* *You make a comment about study and application mode that falls in line with something I've been thinking about.*

*"Study" mode* could be applied to something we all do regardless of type? We all as humans are cataloging information in our brains all the time, consciously and unconsciously. S is a cataloging that comes from a perspective of being inside the body, and in a strange way this same cataloging, for N, comes from outside the context of physical experience. I don't like the word metaphysical, because of modern day associations with the word; one way to describe it might be collecting cause and effect observations of an abstract nature, and like you hinted at above, it is not mystical. 

A layman's description of the *"application" mode* of N could be imagination. In the sense that there is "nothing new under the sun", creating something completely new is almost an illusion; we have those ah-ha moments and what we are doing is recombining or assembling that N data. Ti, or another function would be what takes over when we decide what to do with this "revelation".

Before "the sequel", comments made in 1.0 about Ni being more associated with systems building. I get that, don't quite know how to explain Ni, only know it when I see it.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> *@MegaTuxRacer* *You make a comment about study and application mode that falls in line with something I've been thinking about.*
> 
> *"Study" mode* could be applied to something we all do regardless of type? We all as humans are cataloging information in our brains all the time, consciously and unconsciously. S is a cataloging that comes from a perspective of being inside the body, and in a strange way this same cataloging, for N, comes from outside the context of physical experience. I don't like the word metaphysical, because of modern day associations with the word; one way to describe it might be collecting cause and effect observations of an abstract nature, and like you hinted at above, it is not mystical.
> 
> A layman's description of the *"application" mode* of N could be imagination. In the sense that there is "nothing new under the sun", creating something completely new is almost an illusion; we have those ah-ha moments and what we are doing is recombining or assembling that N data. Ti, or another function would be what takes over when we decide what to do with this "revelation".


I was of course referring to those modes in the context of Ni and Ni alone. This does not exist within Ne and Ne alone. It exists within Si, but its process is different.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

No study mode for Ne?

I don't think S has anything to do with N; they are separate filing systems, even though they could hypothetical take in data from the same, or nearly the same life experience.
Well, of course N is related to S in the sense that we do actually live in a body.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> No study mode for Ne?


I covered that in the article.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

I understand the parallel you are drawing with extroversion in general. That make sense, and I read what you said. But trying to align this with my own experience, hmmm. . . .

To me, extroversion expresses itself more as a big picture, outer-world focus.
Ne could be paralleled with Te? Is Te only concerned with presently gained knowledge?


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

I'm curious, does Ni work similar to Si as in looking through the past but unlike using forms, Ni brings up impressions and is able to further link them together with emerging events and look at how similar patterns have emerged and their implications. 

Also, is there any accuracy to the statement that Ni requires deliberate use and actual significant interest from the individual while Ne is something is usually always "on" and does not actually need deliberate use.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> To me, extroversion expresses itself more as a big picture, outer-world focus.
> Ne could be paralleled with Te? Is Te only concerned with presently gained knowledge?


I don't think extraversion has anything to do with big picture focus. Introversion and extraversion have to do with the framework that is being used: in or out. Te uses and external framework to compare and judge information. I still don't quite understand Te though.



SharkT00th said:


> I'm curious, does Ni work similar to Si as in looking through the past but unlike using forms, Ni brings up impressions and is able to further link them together with emerging events and look at how similar patterns have emerged and their implications.


 @luemb had a problem with the article, mentioning that Ni uses forms. To me, forms, framework, web, etc. are all one in the same. I am not an Ni user, so I wouldn't know the difference if there is one (perhaps there is some essentialism attached?). With that in mind, yeah that's what Ni does. I have a feeling that a few Ni users are going to have issues with prose. I have already run that description by a couple of Ni dominants, and they said it was accurate.



> Also, is there any accuracy to the statement that Ni requires deliberate use and actual significant interest from the individual while Ne is something is usually always "on" and does not actually need deliberate use.


I don't believe so for any function. All of the functions are "on" at all times.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

@MegaTuxRacer

Very interesting, I'm on board with your Ne description but I have a few comments/questions about your Ni section.

Firstly, when you were addressing @surgery about Ni/Ti and talking about probabilities and possibilities, you mentioned that over time your Ne becomes more honed. I would argue that it's your Ti developing, that it's not necessarily your Ne becoming more honed as much as you being able to tell what's good or not. Increasing Ne would increased possibilities and creativity imo.

Speaking of Ti, your Ni description reminded me a lot of Ti. I associate Ti with "just getting the job done" or "seeing through to the solution". I think you have a background in computer science if I'm not mistaken? When you get asked to code something that you've never done before, if you are familiar with the language, can you immediately see the solution? Or do you find that you need to test different stuff out before you know how to do it? 

I don't have a CS background but I have some basic knowledge. (I'm an engineer)

It's always been my impression that those who are intuitive in the colloquial sense have introverted judging as their first two functions. Would you agree or disagree?


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Cellar Door said:


> @MegaTuxRacer
> 
> Very interesting, I'm on board with your Ne description but I have a few comments/questions about your Ni section.
> 
> Firstly, when you were addressing @surgery about Ni/Ti and talking about probabilities and possibilities, you mentioned that over time your Ne becomes more honed. I would argue that it's your Ti developing, that it's not necessarily your Ne becoming more honed as much as you being able to tell what's good or not. Increasing Ne would increased possibilities and creativity imo.


Thanks for the feedback. This is an interesting idea that I would have to give more thought to. Could be.



> Speaking of Ti, your Ni description reminded me a lot of Ti. I associate Ti with "just getting the job done" or "seeing through to the solution". I think you have a background in computer science if I'm not mistaken? When you get asked to code something that you've never done before, if you are familiar with the language, can you immediately see the solution? Or do you find that you need to test different stuff out before you know how to do it?


Ti determines and Ni sees. I never have the whole solution immediately pop into my head the moment I see the problem. I have an idea of where I want to go, but I attribute that to Ne. I still have to think through the problem in order to form a solution.



> I don't have a CS background but I have some basic knowledge. (I'm an engineer)
> 
> It's always been my impression that those who are intuitive in the colloquial sense have introverted judging as their first two functions. Would you agree or disagree?


Disagree. In the colloquial sense, everyone has strong intuition.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

I make the Ni-Ne distinction between dynamical-processes (how things change w.r.t. time/force/variables) and structural-possibilities (how one thing is "similar" to another vis-a-vie analogy of a third, i.e. context). While this may closely aligned to the socion camp, my reasoning has more to do with the unconscious material that these two functions have to work with, namely repressed Se-Si. By the nature of the two repressed functions (Se as the raw experience of the now (contextless), Si as impressionistic snapshots (contains context) ), one can surmise that Ni links raw data (e.g. images) by their associations in a Bayesian fashion whereas Ne generates new material by superimposing contexts (platonic forms or structures). 

Not disagreeing with what you said, but just injecting my own interpretation. In any case, I'm sure these two functions have caused much of the philosophical divides in history.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I love that you took the time to express your conceptualization of this function, and I want to contribute my own ideas about this function so we can compare study notes.

I think the best way to do this is to break down the text from psychological types line by line, something I've been meaning to do here ever since the pointlessly hostile semantic arguments about it that I keep getting sucked into.

First,


> Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort.


Things that my mind shouts out at me right away are, "elements of the _unconscious_" - meaning, these inner objects are not something that the subject is consciously aware of themselves. This, to me, is confirmed in his next sentence, where he expresses that the nature of the "inner object" is identical to that of the outer object. What he seems to be saying is, just as we lack access to that very _transcendental idea_ of the _truely objective_ object itself, so do we lack access to the very transcendental idea of the completely subjective inner vision. Therefore, I imagine it is fair to say, for example, that just as one peers ever more deeply into the structure and facts about the external world of objects and their constituent elements, properties, and forces, in order to perceive more and more of the details about a thing, so it is the same with the inner objects of the unconscious which appear within what Jung called a "psychological reality" - this sounds very much to me like having a subjective "vision" or even in the extreme case, a straight-up hallucenation. Indeed, I feel my conjecture is confirmed when, in a video interview, Jung himself actually confirms that when he dealt with a particular introverted intuitive typed girl she actually claimed to see a snake in his belly, and he automatically assumed she might even be schizophrenic at first until she admitted it was only a metaphor, but that she really did see it in her mind. I think this really clarifies just how vivid and powerful this function can manifest for subjects in whom it gains primacy as the principal function.




> Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.




This little clue is _vital._ Here, we can account for the "dreamy" and "fantasy" like reverie of introverted intuition. So we have extroverted intuition, which stays with _whatever inspires the intuition_ - the objects, concepts, situation itself that produces the inspiration is valued. This is the focus on the _external_ which is the beginning and end of extroversion. With introverted intuition, it isn't the objects or the circumstances themselves which are to be valued so much as the insight itself, and thus is the introverted intuition less concerned with pursuing opportunities for inspiration from the external world in terms of quantity, and instead is more focused on _quality_ which it derives from extended inward focus on the impetus received. Necessarily, one can intuitively see why then, it is necessary to _block out_ further external sources of inspiration, as this necessarily distracts from the inward focus on receiving the _entire message_ from just something specific, trying to follow that one initial impression out to the conceptual limit.

I have a lot more to say but I feel it would be best to break it up into parts so you can respond to what I've got so far. I don't want to wash out any important little bits with too much information all at once.

Part of my excitement for this thread is of course due to our discussions in private, but also because I feel very confident about my understanding of this function, as I believe it to be the dominant function in my psyche.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

@Abraxas I don't think that there is necessarily anything I disagree with or that conflicts with my observations I have shared. I think the difference is that you have approached it from a very philosophical perspective while I approached it from a functional perspective. Perhaps if you saw something wrong with my reasoning? I based all of my findings on my own observations.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> @_Abraxas_ I don't think that there is necessarily anything I disagree with or that conflicts with my observations I have shared. I think the difference is that you have approached it from a very philosophical perspective while I approached it from a functional perspective. Perhaps if you saw something wrong with my reasoning? I based all of my findings on my own observations.


I saw nothing wrong with your reasoning at all actually. I just wanted to contribute my own understanding to the discussion for peer review the same as you, good sir. I think you have it pretty much spot on.

If I was a bit confusing when I started to talk about "transcendental ideas" I apologize - I was indirectly making a reference to the Kantian notion of "the-thing-in-itself" - objective reality itself, which is necessarily "transcendent" in that it cannot come into "real" or "natural" experience, and is therefore beyond what we call the "natural world" which is the domain of science and the philosophy of "methodological naturalism". I think what Jung is getting at when he talks about extraverted sensation never being able to really get at the actual object itself is basically a tip of his hat to this Kantian theme.

The idea is that there is a real world "out there", but forever outside of and beyond our subjective experience of existence because we are eternally confined to our own "bubble" of subjective reality outside of which we just have no rational access. That is to say, when I look at the sun, I see the same object as everyone else which is labeled "Sun" - but it appears to me in a particular way that nobody but I can experience. Hence, I am restricted to a sort of prison of my own senses.

I think this is an important metaphysical distinction to be aware of however, when reading Jung. The reason being because one should not interpret "objective" when used to describe extraversion as meaning that the function actually _is_ objective, insofar as _anything is_. Rather, it is just an _orientation_ towards information, showing a favoring for objectivity over subjectivity.

Not that I'm trying to suggest you've done that, but I just wanted to toss that last part on in case anyone else hadn't thought of it.

I visualize it's like this, in order of most objective to least objective: 

"transcendental objective reality" > "the natural world" > "the subjective world" > "consciousness" < "subconsciousness" > "unconsciousness" > "collective unconsciousness"?

Notice the 1-2-3, 3-2-1 inside-out symmetry of this kind of approach. Was this what Jung was thinking? He's dead now so we can only guess, but I think I'm on to _something_.

Then the way he goes on to describe his theory about the collective unconsciousness and his archetypes - if you have the kind of extensive background in philosophy that I do, you can see how all he is doing, really, is just mirroring the sentiment and intuition that Kant is having about the external world of objects, only, he is turning it around and applying it to subjective reality itself. Really, I dare say that if Jung _had_ marketed himself as a philosopher of the mind, he would probably be even more of an eminent figure in the discipline than he already is.

It just seems so intuitive and natural to assume the same Kantian theme applies to the subjective world, and then we have this clean conceptual division and a nice symmetrical model of the psyche to go with it, all of it based on dualism and so we get this black/white binary dichotomy model that he reduced the psyche to.

For all the empirical research backing up the "Big Five" - I still prefer the _elegance_ and simplicity of Jung's more rationalist approach.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I want to contribute here about my understanding of Ne and Ni have been redefined quite a bit as well. Especially how I have gained a much better grasp of Ni and how I can apparently engage in activities where I consciously engage with Ni. I was actually considering writing a thread about how to practice engaging Ne and Ni respectively, but I think I can dump some of my ideas in here instead. 

So first, I was thinking that activities that make you engage with Ni are activities such as literary analysis. In literary analysis, you look for themes, hidden motifs, metaphors and symbols in order to interpret the larger context. This can be carried over to any type or work of art. The reason why art is because art is often quite ridden of these metaphors and symbols, but it can also be applied to say, dream analysis or any other kind of analysis that looks for meaning within the abstract. 

I think the best way to practice Ni is to ask yourself, "what does this mean?". Of course, this might be more difficult to a sensor whose intuition is poorly developed, but nevertheless. You can look at any object in your surroundings and then ask, "what does this mean?". If I see a flower in the window white in color, it is possible to for example say that the flower can represent a larger motif of peace. Other obvious examples are that we wear black at a funeral to represent our sense of loss and mourning. Or if I watch this movie and a person dies and it's raining, I can ask myself, "what does the rain mean?" Obviously in this case, the rain represents sadness and loss and it's a common motif used in fiction. The reason why I'm using simple examples here are so it's easier to grasp. Once Ni becomes more developed and a larger part of the conscious, you can direct Ni to go deeper than these more superficial and commonly known symbols and start creating meaning from much more complex and personal patterns that don't necessarily relate to any known understandings of a symbol at all. 

Ne on the other hand, is actually more the ability to predict events when they happen before they happen, although it can only predict a very short time ahead. I can for example see my cat pushing a mug off the table and I know she will knock it into the floor. It is important to notice here that I now I take an intuitive leap into "the future". I am not just being aware that the mug is being pushed, but I am being aware of the _possible outcomes of the action itself_. A good way to practice Ne in a daily context is to ask "what if?" or "what happens next?". So if you see a person getting into the car, the logical conclusion is that the person will drive away. Or you are tentative about buying this particular jam, so asking "what if I buy this jam instead?" would also be an example of Ne as you are asking yourself about a possible result of an outcome. Maybe it would be better with blueberry jam to the pancakes than strawberries?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> I don't think extraversion has anything to do with big picture focus. Introversion and extraversion have to do with the framework that is being used: in or out. Te uses and external framework to compare and judge information. I still don't quite understand Te though.


*I'm glad you are talking about this* (OP). The first time I tested on one of the links from here, my suggested type was INTJ but it was close with Entp, Entj, and maybe Intp as other possibilities? It seems I use *both Ne and Ni*, with Fe being quite low by comparison, but Fi lower? One cause might be that *learned skill* (habit from pragmatism) is one thing and how much that mixes with *actual temperament* is hard to separate? The thing that most makes me convinced of not being ENTJ is that, though I like working with them, I notice and admire how they more naturally go after the hard data, to qualify and quantify (in reference to your comment about Te).

*Don't know that we disagree about extroversion, maybe semantics?* The thing I'm trying to work out is the idea of *ambiversion and function order* and how they seem to rule each other out, so maybe the problem is definition of extroversion? I know Jung explains that most of us are not on the extreme fringe of either polarity. I think I understand what you mean by framework but still looking for more clarity. My own intention was not to say we don't all use perspectives or techniques that are called for (because of situational specifics). But life proposes to me that extroverts prefer to work from general to specific, and introverts prefer to get details in order to come to a conclusion. This lines up with your observation of Ni. As extroverts we are often pegged as shallow but I think it is more that we want a context before we can care about, or have more attention for details.
I'm sure my terminology sounds more layman than Phd., but am I off track?

*One more comment about intoverted functions,* because they are internal processes it would make sense that they are available to us before or without awareness of the words to describe them. If Si is "stored" from the perspective of inside the body, as I mentioned in a a prev. post, with N being a conceptual "cateloging" that holds on to only the abstraction, that would explain why Ni appears as symbolism, a sub-concious forming of an icon.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Interesting. ^_^ 

The only way I've been able to compare and contrast Ne and Ni is if I see how they both interact with Sensation. Ne-Si and Ni-Se. And I think this is one of those things you have to spend a lot of time studying, and then suddenly you get something and you end up understanding it better than you could before. 

There was this one thread that I was very helpful and I ended up explaining how I saw the difference. 



> The only way I've ever been able to get an idea of the All Mysterious Ni (because that is what it is to me -- a very backwards, weird sort of Intuition, lol) is to see how it works with Se.
> 
> I used to just say Ni is narrower. I don't think narrower works. It's not that Ni is narrower but that its focus is on something different. I mean, both do focus on possibilities concerning something. What I've noticed is that a person who uses Ni seems to see what is (Se) and then tends to peer behind a curtain of what is going on and see all aspects and meanings and such that surround that -- and then connects those to other things. Other concepts that stretch and touch everything. I mean, in this way it could almost be broad. It sees broad concepts in something narrow that help define reality, or see another way of looking at this one small piece of reality. I don't like to use the word meaning because I connect it to Feeling in my mind. But they don't just do what an Ne-dom does.
> 
> A Ne-dom might see a person and wonder about them, wonder who they are, what they could be feeling, what could be happening, what sort of person they are truly, what sort of person they could be in the future. Multiple realities, some that totally differ from the next possibility. Random ideas stemming from one object. Ne is just so focused on the potential surrounding that other person. But a Ni-dom might look at a person and think for whatever reason, "I see all of beauty here..." and might begin to connect this concept to other things. Ne seems much more random -- an unorganized explosion of tangents that originate from the object, haha. Ni to me looks like a more carefully connected web, touching on undercurrents that lay behind things as opposed to the ideas lying clearly in front of them. Maybe that's why Ni is sometimes described as being "timeless". Ne is subject to time and change. Ni isn't, really. Because what it focuses on isn't subject to time (from what I understand) and it is not so much focused on movement and change and potential. I suppose that because anything within the external world will be effected by all of those things and depends on those things -- and therefore, Ne is restrained to that as well.


And then as a bit of an afterthought: 



> Hmm... one time I read something which said Intuition had a lot to do with your perception of time, or something like that. I was recently thinking how ever different type would experience and perceive time, and how they orient themselves to it. The more I think about it, it does make sense that Ni would be "timeless". Ne focuses on objects, all of which are in "motion" (not always in the physical sense but it always seems like for whatever law applies to the physical world, the same or a similar "law" seems to apply to the non-physical world [if that even makes sense]), so Ne is focusing on the effects of time by observing objects. But Ni, which looks past objects and doesn't really care about that, does not focus on something in "motion". It definitely doesn't have the sense of time like Ne does. It makes sense that because of its focus, the Ni-dom would find themselves feeling very disconnected to the many things changing around them. O_O It's as if Ni just usually focuses on time as a whole, or something like that.


EDIT: I think perhaps Ni focuses on the forces that cause the objects to move... if that makes sense. That is the idea I am currently entertaining. 

These are aspects of Ne and Ni I've noticed. Of course, my understanding is still not yet perfect, or to the level I'd like it to be. 

This was the thread: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/129860-all-ni-like-descriptions.html


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*If* I meet with a retailer, and they tell me about a sale they want to do and I have 3 or 4 nearly new to the world ideas about how to promote this, I don't mean marketing genius, just that this time I'm not suggesting a rework or tweak of something I've done a million times. -this would be Ne, right? I see the whole thing as a finished product, (actually 3 possible different campaigns) then Ti notices the fuzziness and I start list making about how to finish this off. So I suppose the Ne is spontaneous and the "simmering" of the plan to make it real is Ti?

*If* a customer shows me some designs they like, printed work, or labels, or a web page, and from that I get a sense of this customers taste and intentions, if I accurately categorize it as "young and playful" or "artsy but upscale", am I using Ni or Ti?
Thick and thin combination letters usually have a more formal look but sometimes don't read as well, so if customer likes the Prada logo and I come up with a design that looks stylish and upscale though I've used a letter style from a very different type family, is that Ni?
Is it an S function because we are working with a visual? It's not timeless in use (not forever anyway) but it is a kind of breaking something down into an essence that is not concrete but still true.


----------



## Karma Butterfly (Jul 15, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Please explain to me how it's going to change? You are who you are with or without a label. Your understanding of yourself may change, but isn't that the very point when trying to type oneself honestly at least, to do that kind of self-exploration? But who you actually are, that is not going to change. The label is merely a descriptor of something may it be your sexuality, your gender, the clothes you prefer what have you - but you were already that way before you began calling yourself as such. People's perception of you may also change, but it doesn't change who you are and if people cannot accept you for who you are and still see you the same regardless of whatever labels you go by at this very moment, then they aren't very valuable people to keep around either to be honest.


I never said the identity would change. What I meant it's exactly what you've just said: what changes it's your perception of yourself as well as the idea others have of who you are. It would also depend on how much value you place on this particular label and how much the discovery of your type has impacted your life.

That's why I don't think it's accurate to say _nothing_ changes. To many of our users the MBTI/Socionics/Ennegram type seems to have as much weight as their own names, judging by the lengths they go to "defend" their conception of themselves which are, as said here before, misguided and wrong a lot of the time.

It all comes down to why each of us decided to enter this rabbit hole. Self discovery? General curiosity abut psychology? Need to find a group of similar minded people? To get credentials that could be used as social currency?

I for example have argued my type no because I won't accept being anything but ENFP, but because of the reasoning behind the claims I weren't. I'm past the need to find others like me and never saw typology as relating to status, so I'm left with the desire to understand human minds better (including mine). That makes me open to re-think and question not only my tying of others but of my own as well.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dancing_Queen said:


> I never said the identity would change. What I meant it's exactly what you've just said: what changes it's your perception of yourself as well as the idea others have of who you are. It would also depend on how much value you place on this particular label and how much the discovery of your type has impacted your life.
> 
> That's why I don't think it's accurate to say _nothing_ changes.


But it entirely depends on what you are labeling as "changing". To me a type is a descriptor of who you are first and foremost. It doesn't change _you _which was my entire point. The way I see people resisting against certain labels is exactly because they do not identify with the way the label is seen as being valued as if it does somehow change who they are as people which it clearly does not. If people could learn to let go of that, they would have an easier time seeing aspects of themselves they would otherwise not choose to engage or see from a specific light precisely because they attach values to the labels. The labels are without value in themselves. 




> To many of our users the MBTI/Socionics/Ennegram type seems to have as much weight as their own names, judging by the lengths they go to "defend" their conception of themselves which are, as said here before, misguided and wrong a lot of the time.


Depends on what weight we are discussing about. 



> It all comes down to why each of us decided to enter this rabbit hole. Self discovery? General curiosity abut psychology? Need to find a group of similar minded people? To get credentials that could be used as social currency?
> 
> I for example have argued my type no because I won't accept being anything but ENFP, but because of the reasoning behind the claims I weren't. I'm past the need to find others like me and never saw typology as relating to status, so I'm left with the desire to understand human minds better (including mine). That makes me open to re-think and question not only my tying of others but of my own as well.


But if that is your reason, then why attach values to labels like I do not want to be X type because they are such Y way? If one is going to be able to fully understand the world which one is interested to study and understand where typology can definitely play such a role, then one must first start with being honest towards oneself and learn to let go of certain ideas of who one is or isn't. If you don't you will simply end up with a flawed idea of the system and how to apply it which in the long run is not going to help you nor those people you attempt to type.


----------



## Karma Butterfly (Jul 15, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> But it entirely depends on what you are labeling as "changing". To me a type is a descriptor of who you are first and foremost. It doesn't change _you _which was my entire point. The way I see people resisting against certain labels is exactly because they do not identify with the way the label is seen as being valued as if it does somehow change who they are as people which it clearly does not. If people could learn to let go of that, they would have an easier time seeing aspects of themselves they would otherwise not choose to engage or see from a specific light precisely because they attach values to the labels. The labels are without value in themselves.


Yes I agree with everything said here, though again I see no reason to state the obvious. You are right in your assessment of how silly it is to cling to a label, but it won't change the fact people do and most likely will continue to do so. Pointing out wrong behaviors won't make them go away.





ephemereality said:


> Depends on what weight we are discussing about.


That should be obvious. Certain types have "forum cred" and are treated by royalty in many threads, weaker minds will agree with anything these people say regardless of how utterly inconsistent and moronic it is because say, an INTJ said so. You have the same people ignoring really good points made by ESFP people because of the ridiculous bias against Sensors.

A more developed and confident person wouldn't give thought to such behavior but are we all self realized individuals in this forum? No.




ephemereality said:


> But if that is your reason, then why attach values to labels like I do not want to be X type because they are such Y way? If one is going to be able to fully understand the world which one is interested to study and understand where typology can definitely play such a role, then one must first start with being honest towards oneself and learn to let go of certain ideas of who one is or isn't. If you don't you will simply end up with a flawed idea of the system and how to apply it which in the long run is not going to help you nor those people you attempt to type.


And _where_ did you get the idea I give value to being this or that type? 

The _entire_ last paragraph was me stating the _exact opposite_:



Dancing_Queen said:


> *I for example have argued my type not because I won't accept being anything but ENFP, but because of the reasoning behind the claims I weren't. I'm past the need to find others like me and never saw typology as relating to status*, so I'm left with the desire to understand human minds better (including mine). That makes me open to re-think and question not only my tying of others but of my own as well.


That clear enough to you?

I don't disagree with anything you've said, I just find it completely unnecessary since everything it's very obvious and there was nothing in my posts that contradicts any of it.

People are what they are, labels shouldn't matter but they do and if these labels change, many will be shaken up out of their stupor. I don't find that complex or particularly interesting at all so that's why I'm surprised you keep following up on this.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dancing_Queen said:


> Yes I agree with everything said here, though again I see no reason to state the obvious. You are right in your assessment of how silly it is to cling to a label, but it won't change the fact people do and most likely will continue to do so. Pointing out wrong behaviors won't make them go away.


Then you clearly misunderstand why I did so. I didn't do it because I think anything will change besides when typing people who ask to be typed. I actually started the post you quoted with the very answer that nothing does change, it being a rhetorical question. 

Your question was not necessarily obviously rhetorical because it was not strongly implied to be and it is definitely not stating the obvious. I simply answered it from my own point of view. That I need to explain this, however feels like I must state the obvious. 



> That should be obvious. Certain types have "forum cred" and are treated by royalty in many threads, weaker minds will agree with anything these people say regardless of how utterly inconsistent and moronic it is because say, an INTJ said so. You have the same people ignoring really good points made by ESFP people because of the ridiculous bias against Sensors.


If those people were of any valuable intelligence they would disregard everything else but the content of the post itself. I don't judge the book by its cover but by its content. That some people do that simply reveals their own deeper issues as to why they are here. 



> A more developed and confident person wouldn't give thought to such behavior but are we all self realized individuals in this forum? No.


So you assume there are no such individuals on this forum at all?


> And _where_ did you get the idea I give value to being this or that type?
> 
> The _entire_ last paragraph was me stating the _exact opposite_:


Where did I ever explicitly refer to you? If I used the word "you" in my previous post, it wasn't you in the second person , but third person. It was a rhetorical question not directly aimed at you but the audience, specifically those who do that. 


> That clear enough to you?
> 
> I don't disagree with anything you've said, I just find it completely unnecessary since everything it's very obvious and there was nothing in my posts that contradicts any of it.
> 
> People are what they are, labels shouldn't matter but they do and if these labels change, many will be shaken up out of their stupor. I don't find that complex or particularly interesting at all so that's why I'm surprised you keep following up on this.


Then why are you nitpicking on a response I wrote in response to you? Are you so against discussion about typing?


----------



## Karma Butterfly (Jul 15, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Then you clearly misunderstand why I did so. I didn't do it because I think anything will change besides when typing people who ask to be typed. I actually started the post you quoted with the very answer that nothing does change, it being a rhetorical question.


My original post had a rhetorical question which you felt the need to address because to you, that point was debatable and not the absolute truth. I've done the same thing here.



ephemereality said:


> Your question was not necessarily obviously rhetorical because it was not strongly implied to be and it is definitely not stating the obvious. I simply answered it from my own point of view. That I need to explain this, however feels like I must state the obvious.


Already addressed above.



ephemereality said:


> If those people were of any valuable intelligence they would disregard everything else but the content of the post itself. I don't judge the book by its cover but by its content. That some people do that simply reveals their own deeper issues as to why they are here.


Obviously.




ephemereality said:


> So you assume there are no such individuals on this forum at all?


Do you have reading comprehension issues? This is the second time you question something which I've clearly stated before.

Here:



Dancing_Queen said:


> A more developed and confident person wouldn't give thought to such behavior but are we _*all *_self realized individuals in this forum? No.


Is that clear enough? I questioned if _all people on this forum _are self realized, it wasn't implied anywhere that none were. 




ephemereality said:


> Where did I ever explicitly refer to you? If I used the word "you" in my previous post, it wasn't you in the second person , but third person. It was a rhetorical question not directly aimed at you but the audience, specifically those who do that.
> 
> 
> Then why are you nitpicking on a response I wrote in response to you? Are you so against discussion about typing?


Which is why I rewrote my last post using "they" instead of "you". If I'm removed form this particular audience then I'm not part of "you".

I could ask the exact thing to you. I'm not the one against discussing typing at all and I'd like to see where did I demonstrated that.

We could have been discussing the actual Ne vs Ni matter if you hadn't spent all this time writing things I've already know and agree with. That leaves no room to moving the discussion along, since I have to explain my points and reiterate my opinion due to constant misunderstandings from both parts and your tendency to assume things that weren't stated in the actual text.

I've said everything I had to say on the "Are labels important or not" matter and if I was vague in anything I wrote was because 1) I felt that was no necessity to delve further on it since the conclusions were starkly obvious and 2) as I've said before, my first question was rhetorical and my interest in this issue, momentary. 

This bored me to death so if you wanna discuss actual typing instead, I'm on board. Otherwise I'm out.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

@Dancing_Queen @ephemereality

I don't (currently) use typing for self development or self understanding. What I do use it for is developing models for understanding and communicating effectively with people who think very differently from me. 
The implications carried by a bunch of mistyped Ne users describing their experience of Ne is that it makes it much harder to build an accurate useful description of how different Se and Ne actually are. 

(When your core idea is broken, building useful offshoot ideas doesn't work.)


----------



## Karma Butterfly (Jul 15, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> @_Dancing_Queen_ @_ephemereality_
> 
> I don't (currently) use typing for self development or self understanding. What I do use it for is developing models for understanding and communicating effectively with people who think very differently from me.
> The implications carried by a bunch of mistyped Ne users describing their experience of Ne is that it makes it much harder to build an accurate useful description of how different Se and Ne actually are.
> ...


It's a wise decision. 

Ne ans Se aren't that similar to me though, at least not enough to justify mixing them up. Mistying could be the reason to the spread of false definitons, then.


----------



## AnnaKidd (Oct 29, 2020)

Here is a video from Bite-sized socionics series by Encyclopedia Socionika on Ni vs Ne!


----------

