# What the watermelon is Se and Ni



## Tacos (May 10, 2010)

I kinda understood all functions, except the very evil Se and its acolyte Ni.

Yes I did read the descriptions, but apparently Se is like being in the real world touching everything and going wooohooo, and Ni is organizing your inner world (lolwat?)

As you can see, I didnt understand anything.

Thanks for your help dear answerers


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I think Se is just noticing things in the environment in physical and concrete detail. I look at this sheet of notebook paper on my desk, and I start thinking about all kinds of things like paper airplanes, a gigantic paper airplane, how it might be possible to build a paper airplane the size of a real airplane if I had enough paper. Someone with Se as their dominant function would probably pay more attention to what the paper is physically and how it can be used in that moment to make something happen. Ni works with Se for ESPs in that it'll give them insight into how doing certain things might lead to certain results. I think Ni is just realizing how events could unfold in one straight path.
That's just people who use Se as their dominant function and Ni as their inferior function. I'm not sure about people who use Ni as their dominant function and Se as their inferior function. But I notice that a lot of function descriptions mesh explanations of the function itself and how it's used with it's opposite function, which is how people will most likely notice these functions anyway.


----------



## Tacos (May 10, 2010)

Thanks a lot!!
With your paper example, what would Ne do ? Just like to clarify o-O

For Ni, does this definition seems right ?
Dominant: Introverted intuition (Ni)Attracted to symbolic actions or devices, Ni synthesizes seeming paradoxes to create the previously unimagined. These realizations come with a certainty that demands action to fulfill a new vision of the future, solutions that may include complex systems or universal truths. 
(From wikipedia) Does that means that they will want to create new stuff and always a new way of doing this, with thinking about its future ? o_o

Also is it possible for a ENFP to have as functions Ne, Fi then Ti ?


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Ne works with Si. I'm trying to get this right, but I'm not _very_ good with words...
As Functianalyst has said(and now I get it, even though I rejected it at first), Se does, and Ne considers. An Se-user would be most concerned with figuring out how things around them can be used for *immediate* results. An Ne-user relates the present to something from the past(Si) to come up with new possibilities and ideas. But these possibilities don't necessarily have anything to do with how they can effect the world immediately, in that moment. So in general, the Ne-user would just consider the possibilities and come up with new ideas and meaning, but only in certain situations would they go further.

I'm not too sure about Ni as a dominant function; I suppose someone with Ni might come and explain xD


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Nyx said:


> I think Se is just noticing things in the environment in physical and concrete detail. I look at this sheet of notebook paper on my desk, and I start thinking about all kinds of things like paper airplanes, a gigantic paper airplane, how it might be possible to build a paper airplane the size of a real airplane if I had enough paper. Someone with Se as their dominant function would probably pay more attention to what the paper is physically and how it can be used in that moment to make something happen. Ni works with Se for ESPs in that it'll give them insight into how doing certain things might lead to certain results. I think Ni is just realizing how events could unfold in one straight path.


Both Se and Ne consider possibilities. The difference is Se will act on the possibilities and Ne will simply consider them. Going back to your example of seeing a sheet of paper, where you merely consider what you can make from the paper, Se will make the airplane.


Nyx said:


> That's just people who use Se as their dominant function and Ni as their inferior function. I'm not sure about people who use Ni as their dominant function and Se as their inferior function. But I notice that a lot of function descriptions mesh explanations of the function itself and how it's used with it's opposite function, which is how people will most likely notice these functions anyway.


The tandem use of the types can be found *here*:


> Extraverted Sensing
> We can be very tuned in to the surrounding environment, with anticipation of what’s coming next. We may constantly read our industry’s current news to be sure to catch the next wave of innovations. Or we can engage people in fun activities, drawing them out and helping them transform themselves. We might pull a shy person onto the dance floor, convinced that there is an inner dancer waiting to be released; that person experiences his or her potential firsthand. Or we might shape the current context to what we envision it can be, like a sculptor who can “see” the final statue within a chunk of marble and sculpts everything else away to get to it.
> 
> Introverted Intuiting
> We might try out various tangible experiences and activities to catalyze realizations for growth. The more varied and undigested experiences one has, the more material there is for the unconscious to draw upon. We might look inward to envision how we can transform something, then gather data and take actions to realize that goal—to make real what is envisioned. For example, we might visualize how people will one day journey into space, and then take the actions necessary to design and build a spaceship to accomplish that goal. This might take many years of action, including activities to sustain the vision. Another tandem relationship involves engaging in a physical activity so that body, mind, and environment merge to become one, perhaps experiencing a great sense of calm or energy.


----------



## Tacos (May 10, 2010)

Thanks! 

But then Ne and Se are 2 completly different things ? Is it like a microwave and a tree ? 

Do Ni finish things they started most of the time ?


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

That's the only problem I've had with that explanation of the Se and Ne difference as simply 'doing' and 'considering'. Because I don't think that's the only difference, especially if you go deeper into the tandem thing.
If I look at the nature of Se-Ni and Ne-Si, I think that an ENP would also be apt to do rather than just consider, but an ESP is gonna scan the environment and notice how things might happen if they do certain things. An ENP will see that certain things can happen. 
I do notice how I can do things to get results, and I do often act on them, but it's not based on how I perceive things might happen, it's based on the fact that I want to see how things happen and that things can happen.


----------



## Tacos (May 10, 2010)

I think I understand now =O

Thanks again! (even if i already said that at least one trillion times o.o)


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Tacos said:


> Thanks!
> 
> But then Ne and Se are 2 completly different things ? Is it like a microwave and a tree ?
> 
> Do Ni finish things they started most of the time ?


Wow Tacos, you’re nothing if not a dominant Ne user :laughing: What an analogy of the Se and Ne, but sorry I am clueless to what that means. To answer your last question Ni users finish things using their Te or Fe. Simple rule of thumb would be that anything done outside of the Self must be done with an extraverted function. Granted both Si and Ni have that first-middle-end way of processing, so they can completely work a project in their heads, but they will have to use something other than those functions to execute and present the project to the world. 

As for the inquiry about Ne and Se, they’re actually used for the same thing, the same as Te-Fe, Si-Ni and Ti-Fi. Naomi Quenck gave an illustration in her book, “Beside Ourselves” that trying to Se and Ne is like considering something and actually doing it at the same time. You can’t consider something if you’re going to do it. Berens’ look a-like definitions posted *here* may give a better understanding of how the functions are similar. I would quote Jung, but I don’t want you and Nix to get that glazed over look. However you can read his recap of the extraverted perceiving functions on the site *here*. Anyhow Berens says Ne-Se and Ni-Si have commonalities as explained below:


> Extraverted Sensing (Se)/Extraverted Intuiting (Ne) – Se and Ne are both simultaneous in nature and involve perception of many things at once. This can lead to random activity as the outer world is scanned for additional information. With Se, there is an emphasis on possibilities for actions to take. With Ne, there is an emphasis on possibilities to be considered for action.
> 
> Introverted Sensing (Si)/Introverted Intuiting (Ni) – Si and Ni are both more focused and involve a perception of “one thing at a time.” This gives the behavior a sequential appearance, with a sense of beginning, middle and end. With Si, the sequence is often logistical in nature and based on the past. Ni is based on a vision for the future, and the focus is on what steps to take next.


Hope that helps.


Nyx said:


> That's the only problem I've had with that explanation of the Se and Ne difference as simply 'doing' and 'considering'. Because I don't think that's the only difference, especially if you go deeper into the tandem thing.
> 
> If I look at the nature of Se-Ni and Ne-Si, I think that an ENP would also be apt to do rather than just consider, but an ESP is gonna scan the environment and notice how things might happen if they do certain things. An ENP will see that certain things can happen.
> 
> I do notice how I can do things to get results, and I do often act on them, but it's not based on how I perceive things might happen, it's based on the fact that I want to see how things happen and that things can happen.


That is true Nyx, and those examples were just that. You can create examples that work according to how you use Ne-Si. But keep in mind we repress our more inferior functions, otherwise it precludes our dominant functions from, well being dominant. 

I look at the functions like a pendulum where the greater one side, the weaker it’s opposite. The more you Ne, the less you Si, the more I Ti the less I Fe and so on. But that does not mean you have no use of your Si and I have no use of my Fe. They’re just not prevalent. They can’t be otherwise our dominant functions cease to work properly. 

However it’s different for the lesser functions like auxiliary and tertiary. There is nothing to say that they cannot be equal. And as you will see from the look a-likes, I wonder if you are confusing your sensing with your Te. Remember ladies have a greater use of Te than all other types except ETJs and ITJs since it is your third function.


----------



## Frannyy (May 27, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> I look at the functions like a pendulum where the greater one side, the weaker it’s opposite. The more you Ne, the less you Si, the more I Ti the less I Fe and so on. But that does not mean you have no use of your Si and I have no use of my Fe. They’re just not prevalent. They can’t be otherwise our dominant functions cease to work properly.




this is really interesting, I never thought of it like this.... I was just thinking about my use of Ne the other day- sometimes I will go off into these daydream-like states and now that I think about it, when this happens, my sensory awareness is very low and almost non-existent. Usually I am fully aware and in tune of my surroundings and not willing to daydream. I never noticed the compromise.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Frannyy said:


> this is really interesting, I never thought of it like this.... I was just thinking about my use of Ne the other day- sometimes I will go off into these daydream-like states and now that I think about it, when this happens, my sensory awareness is very low and almost non-existent. Usually I am fully aware and in tune of my surroundings and not willing to daydream. I never noticed the compromise.





> ·	reverie: absentminded dreaming while awake
> 
> ·	A daydream is a visionary fantasy experienced while awake, especially one of happy, pleasant thoughts, hopes or ambitions.


For some reason we tend to associate daydreaming with intuiting only. The process of daydreaming seems to require us to process images and impressions in a detached state. From that standpoint, it would be quite natural for you to daydream using your Si Frannyy. Maybe not a good example, but if you caught the glimpse of apples baking, it may remind you of a time in the past and you begin to reminisce about that time. The next thing you know 30 minutes has passed. 

Ni and Si are what we daydream with since it calsl for a detachment from the present and allowing the mind to wander. When you process using Ne, you're not daydreaming since the function requires you to be actively in the moment. But you can and do brainstorm or go on a tangents with many ideas. This is how Berens and Nardi says that you use Ne:


> While they want to see hidden meanings and interconnections, they may dismiss tangential ideas and implicit meanings. They may see the abstract weaving of many interrelated ideas as just a jumbled up bunch of nonsense not worth of notice. They are likely to quickly dismiss explorations of potential possibilities as a waste of time. They mostly just need time to reflect on and reconcile them with their expectations from what they so clearly know as fact.
> 
> Early in life, they may be prone to stick with literal interpretations, rather than inferences and looser interpretations and tend not to see any possibility or situations changing from the way they are. Over time, they will give more credibility to those "strange knowings", they have previously tuned out and will be more open to moments of synchronicity or convergence. They become more patient with brainstorming and learn to trust what emerges rather than having it all figured out in advance. Later in life, they may become more spontaneous as they follow possibilities to see where they might lead and explore multiple meanings.
> 
> They can become too engaged in this process, making impulsive decisions based on inferences alone. Or they may get overly tied to abstract concepts just because there is alot of reported experiences behind them. They can be concerned or suspicious about potential dangers and become risk avoidant, increasingly limiting activities.


----------



## Everyday Ghoul (Aug 4, 2009)

Since we're on the discussion of Ni and Se, I wonder if I might pick your brain for a moment, Functianalyst, on the difference in Ti/Se and Ni/Te. If my understanding is correct (finally), it would seem they both would react similarly, in that Ni/Ti would be engaged to detach and sort things through subjectively (internally) and apply objectively (externally) through Te/Se. Ti's subjective bend, applying through a literal/objective bend, in terms of Se's pull to concrete facts, seems as though it would be very similar to the Ni/Te process. Any significant way to distinguish it from Te's need to seek evidence and conform to what is externally measurable? I've seen other people mistake you for an NT, but it would seem more likely based on stereotypes of Rationals, than any actual evident use of an intuitive function. In other words, you "act like a rational", therefore you sort of just get stuck with the N. Most would probably mistake you for INTP. However, if anything, the only way I could see one mistaking you for an NT, would be mistaking you for an INTJ, because I have problems differentiating Ti bent through an Se lens from Ni bent through the Te lens. On certain tests, I can actually understand INTJ's scoring as ISTJ's, because of Te's pull to facts and empirical evidence and the tests measuring Se standards on concrete evidence and facts. I've read the links describing artisan and rational core temperaments, but they seem to revert back to pointing out minute, "stereotypical" differences. I was wondering if you saw any other way to distinguish, that didn't revert to such measures. I've been researching things much farther, and believe I'm INTJ, with ISTP being the only other possibility. 

Initial mistypings of myself were due to poor understandings of the system and my social phobia. Stick a profile of someone suffering from avoidant personality disorder in front of someone, who is only versed in stereotypical profiling of MBTI, remove the title, and anyone would say, "Oh, you're describing an INFx". However, to type myself that way, would be saying my illness was, in fact my personality. I don't believe that to be accurate, as I treat new acquaintances night and day different from the way I treat people, that I'm comfortable with. In fact, with a better grasp of Fi, I see little of it in me, at all. Furthermore, Fi, or Fe, for that matter, would probably be bothered by the disingenuous front my social phobia causes me to present to others. The P/J scale was, most likely, thrown off by exceptionally poor understanding and taking nothing into account, but the word of the test. Issues with depression, at times, keep me from being organized, tidy, or very action/plan oriented. Extraversion was due to me applying the traditionally defined terms of being social and outgoing and not the terms relevant to this theory, which essentially equate to leading with an introverted function. Also, just part wishful thinking.

I do believe, outside of the social phobia, I am still inherently an introvert. I detach and analyze things on a constant basis. I would say my ability to adjust my perceptions, hold seemingly paradoxical/contradictory beliefs, and know the long term consequences of my actions, would be more suggestive of Ni, and my need to conform my thinking to what is measurable, demonstrable, or consensus, would be indicative of Te, but, as I said, I still feel some doubt in separating it from the way Ti and Se would work together. I'm still searching for more data to back my understanding; perhaps even further indicative of Te, in itself? lol


----------



## Frannyy (May 27, 2010)

okay, I had no idea about Si and daydreaming.... I guess I can relate to the description as well- i find that as I get older, more and more, I am noticing less details than I did when I was younger only because I realize they are insignificant for me to notice, almost like I have conditioned myself to purposely not notice certain details... So is that Ne?

but then is that also a result from using Ne when under extreme stress?? because I know I use it then- it's like I have no control over my thoughts and they just spiral in this huge web or negative, irrational possibilities. I guess I am confused as to when I use Ne because I originally thought it only came out under extreme stress, but then I thought I was using it for 'daydreaming', but I guess I can also develop it over time and experience of seeing it work and practicing it??


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Tacos said:


> I kinda understood all functions, except the very evil Se and its acolyte Ni.
> 
> Yes I did read the descriptions, but apparently Se is like being in the real world touching everything and going wooohooo, and Ni is organizing your inner world (lolwat?)
> 
> ...


Ni is the greatest thing in the world. Ofcourse as an INTJ I will say that. :happy:

Ni in one word is: Knowing.

There is no doubt, at least, again as an INTJ I say that there is no doubt. What most people consider doubt, to an INTJ is just lack of enough evidence. I never spoke about this with an INFJ so I don't know if they see it like this as well. (lack of enough evidence example.) And probably many INTJ's won't even fully agree with me on this, but I know I'm right. :laughing:

The inner world that you spoke about just means that there is a representation of the world inside the Ni brain, and new experiences are constantly compared to this representation. (Ofcourse, new experiences update this representation all the time.) The Ni brain prefers to use this representation as its baseline for taking decisions.

Another thing that may help better to understand what Ni does, and Ne too by the way, but Ne doesn't come easily to conclusions. Ne just sees, but doesn't decide. Another function does that.

Ni sees A happening and then goes:
A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to E leads to F
and then says: A leads to F.

Most other types will respond with ?????? and I have to say that often I need to be alone for a while to use my Te to figure out how A actually does lead to F. But I already know that it does. I just haven't figured out yet how. (Hence me saying that Ni = knowing.)


I have some ideas about Se but I think it's better that an ESTP or ESFP explains that one as for them, Se is their first function.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

Say there is one of those 'join the dots' things that is actually a Koala. I think an Ni user might take it and imagine the dots to end up looking like the koala, while the Ne user might end up imagining a banana.

Actually I don't know if that is true or not. But I do think your usage of the word 'watermelon' as a replacement for a certain other word is because of your Ne. I would have never thought to do that by myself. I tend not to think outside the box but inside the box over all the information that is in there. I guess Se might be experiencing and putting information into the box; facts like A = B, B = C. And Ni finds the connections between the facts and yells A=C!


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

Peter said:


> Another thing that may help better to understand what Ni does, and Ne too by the way, but Ne doesn't come easily to conclusions. Ne just sees, but doesn't decide. Another function does that.
> 
> Ni sees A happening and then goes:
> A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to E leads to F
> and then says: A leads to F.


I disagree with this part of your aseveration. Ni does not make any conclusion, because Ni is not a judging function. I think your're associating both the properties of perceiving and junging to a single judging function, and this is an error.

I can say that I, as Ne user, see the patterns of the ouside world faster than non Ne users. I can suppose the patterns are correct, but before evaluating them with my judginf function (Ti) will not know if my generated ideas (Ne) are correct (even then I could be wrong...).

The same happens to you. Ni generates ideas, but does not evaluate them, so you didn't know if they're OK only with Ni. Your previous experience making succesful aseveration could give to you a plus of confidence in your Ni, but nothing more. Before testing(evaluating) them in some way, you would not know. Ni is a PERCEIVING function, not a judging. It seems you're using your Fi function for evaluating your Ni ideas, but anyway Ni only generates ideas, does not make conclusions. Confidence in your previous sucess is a way of evaluating, although also internal.

If we're playing chess (a game you probably play better than me), making use of your Ni, you could think "Well, Mens will make this movement and later this and this". But only after the movements are made (Te) you will not know if you're right or not. Ni is not clairvoyance.

I prefer this example about chess over the chain of conclusions you wrote, because your example is more a Ti example than a Ni example. Propositional logic is our kingdom, although we're not xenophobes :happy:
Ni is more like "is A well defined?" "Shouldn't we consider alternative definitions (points of view) for these elements?"


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

MensSuperMateriam said:


> I disagree with this part of your aseveration. Ni does not make any conclusion, because Ni is not a judging function. I think your're associating both the properties of perceiving and junging to a single judging function, and this is an error.
> 
> I can say that I, as Ne user, see the patterns of the ouside world faster than non Ne users. I can suppose the patterns are correct, but before evaluating them with my judginf function (Ti) will not know if my generated ideas (Ne) are correct (even then I could be wrong...).
> 
> ...


I understand what you mean. My description was about the internal processes. Perhaps I didn't describe it very well.

Ni comes to conclusions in the sense that it passes on just one idea which is then processed by the next function(s) for validation after which new observations (the outcome of the validation by the next functions) are fed back into Ni.

What you said about Ni being like "is A well defined?" "Shouldn't we consider alternative definitions (points of view) for these elements?" I don't agree with that. That is actually what Ne is. It's Ni that goes through all those steps A to F and then comes up with the idea that A leads to F. I know this is true because Te is a concious thing while Ni is a subconcious thing. There are no words involved with Ni. It goes like this: ============> done.

Te takes much longer because it's what helps me understand how A leads to F.

Fi is quick too. Something is right or wrong. Period.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Big bad wolf said:


> Since we're on the discussion of Ni and Se, I wonder if I might pick your brain for a moment, Functianalyst, on the difference in Ti/Se and Ni/Te. If my understanding is correct (finally), it would seem they both would react similarly, in that Ni/Ti would be engaged to detach and sort things through subjectively (internally) and apply objectively (externally) through Te/Se. Ti's subjective bend, applying through a literal/objective bend, in terms of Se's pull to concrete facts, seems as though it would be very similar to the Ni/Te process. Any significant way to distinguish it from Te's need to seek evidence and conform to what is externally measurable? I've seen other people mistake you for an NT, but it would seem more likely based on stereotypes of Rationals, than any actual evident use of an intuitive function. In other words, you "act like a rational", therefore you sort of just get stuck with the N. Most would probably mistake you for INTP. However, if anything, the only way I could see one mistaking you for an NT, would be mistaking you for an INTJ, because I have problems differentiating Ti bent through an Se lens from Ni bent through the Te lens. On certain tests, I can actually understand INTJ's scoring as ISTJ's, because of Te's pull to facts and empirical evidence and the tests measuring Se standards on concrete evidence and facts. I've read the links describing artisan and rational core temperaments, but they seem to revert back to pointing out minute, "stereotypical" differences. I was wondering if you saw any other way to distinguish, that didn't revert to such measures. I've been researching things much farther, and believe I'm INTJ, with ISTP being the only other possibility.


Sorry for the delay in responding. You have an impeccable grasp on function usage, as I see it. ISTPs generally mistaken themselves as NT types if the description of SP is too focused on freedom. But because we have an inclination toward resolving the problem, not just considering it or just analyzing it, we do appear more INTJ-ish.


Big bad wolf said:


> Initial mistypings of myself were due to poor understandings of the system and my social phobia. Stick a profile of someone suffering from avoidant personality disorder in front of someone, who is only versed in stereotypical profiling of MBTI, remove the title, and anyone would say, "Oh, you're describing an INFx". However, to type myself that way, would be saying my illness was, in fact my personality. I don't believe that to be accurate, as I treat new acquaintances night and day different from the way I treat people, that I'm comfortable with. In fact, with a better grasp of Fi, I see little of it in me, at all. Furthermore, Fi, or Fe, for that matter, would probably be bothered by the disingenuous front my social phobia causes me to present to others. The P/J scale was, most likely, thrown off by exceptionally poor understanding and taking nothing into account, but the word of the test. Issues with depression, at times, keep me from being organized, tidy, or very action/plan oriented. Extraversion was due to me applying the traditionally defined terms of being social and outgoing and not the terms relevant to this theory, which essentially equate to leading with an introverted function. Also, just part wishful thinking.


I think it’s important to note that dichotomies cannot be used in the application of how you act daily. You have to use functions. Based on our earlier discussion which seemed clear in your disclosures, you very clearly prefer introversion and intuition which just my theory would mean that your dominant function is Ni. Based on further analyses, you seem to have authenticity as a core value. The latter can only be determined by considering core temperaments.


Big bad wolf said:


> I do believe, outside of the social phobia, I am still inherently an introvert. I detach and analyze things on a constant basis. I would say my ability to adjust my perceptions, hold seemingly paradoxical/contradictory beliefs, and know the long term consequences of my actions, would be more suggestive of Ni, and my need to conform my thinking to what is measurable, demonstrable, or consensus, would be indicative of Te, but, as I said, I still feel some doubt in separating it from the way Ti and Se would work together. I'm still searching for more data to back my understanding; perhaps even further indicative of Te, in itself? lol


One thing to consider is again your temperament although you understandably have doubts. When I talk about temperament, I am not referring to Keirsey’s antiquated system, I am speaking of Berens’ descriptions that removes the stereotypes. As I said it seems quite clear that you may be using Ni as your dominant and Ti as your back-up. That means you can only be one type.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Frannyy said:


> okay, I had no idea about Si and daydreaming.... I guess I can relate to the description as well- i find that as I get older, more and more, I am noticing less details than I did when I was younger only because I realize they are insignificant for me to notice, almost like I have conditioned myself to purposely not notice certain details... So is that Ne?


I think it's fair to say that I don't notice details as much unless I am completely engaged. This has less to do with sensing in general and more to do with all introverting types simply not being engaged in the objects around us. Ne may pick up on external objects more than the average in introvert, but all extraverting functions can do this, I would think. As Jung says extraverting functions are focused on the external, introverting functions on the internal. So when you do focus on the external world, I don't think there is any reason to believe it's due to your Te.


Frannyy said:


> but then is that also a result from using Ne when under extreme stress?? because I know I use it then- it's like I have no control over my thoughts and they just spiral in this huge web or negative, irrational possibilities. I guess I am confused as to when I use Ne because I originally thought it only came out under extreme stress, but then I thought I was using it for 'daydreaming', but I guess I can also develop it over time and experience of seeing it work and practicing it??


No, Ne is your fourth function, so you use it balance your Si as best you can. The last four functions (Se-Ti-Fe-Ni) would be those that you would use while stressed, but there is still little information on the shadow functions. I propose that circumstances calling for you to use your Ne may be the trigger of a stressful event, but that is just my opinion. I know in myself, I find that it's a Fe event that may trigger my use of Te-Si-Ne-Fi.


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

Peter said:


> I understand what you mean. My description was about the internal processes. Perhaps I didn't describe it very well.
> 
> Ni comes to conclusions in the sense that it passes on just one idea which is then processed by the next function(s) for validation after which new observations (the outcome of the validation by the next functions) are fed back into Ni.


The feedback process is a general thing, not only Ni. For example: my Ne generates ideas by observation of the outside world; then they're evaluated as true/false by my Ti, which uses strict definitions by its nature. But the evaluation (judgement) will again be compared with the possibilities than Ne offers (new possibilities or variations of the same possibilities), reevaluating and perfectioning the judgements with new variables that comes to play. The framework is developing (Ti) so it will also affects how Ne perceive the world, because it offers previous patterns or ways of finding them that previously worked, etc. Ne feeds Ti, Ti feeds Ne, etc etc etc. The previous judgements work also as input for the new judgements.

Without feedback, learning process is not possible. The brain will not work. It happens even not considering the jungian model. Even the smallest piece of brain works in this way (neurons). The electric impulse modify how it works; with its change, the new impulse will pass through it in a different way, but also modifying the neuron, etc. 



Peter said:


> What you said about Ni being like "is A well defined?" "Shouldn't we consider alternative definitions (points of view) for these elements?" I don't agree with that. That is actually what Ne is. It's Ni that goes through all those steps A to F and then comes up with the idea that A leads to F. I know this is true because Te is a concious thing while Ni is a subconcious thing. There are no words involved with Ni. It goes like this: ============> done.
> 
> Te takes much longer because it's what helps me understand how A leads to F.
> 
> Fi is quick too. Something is right or wrong. Period.


I must insist at this point. A chain of *JUDGEMENTS with STRICT DEFINITIONS* is a Ti thing. This does not imply only Ti users can do this or even are better than others. The model of functions is not about skills, is about trends in the thinking process. Your Ni could suggest to you if they're similaties between A and B, but does not make the judgement. You need a T/F function for this task. P functions are only the source of information, only suggest.
Ni does not make judgements, and Ni does not work (like to work, trend) with strict definitions. Ni users "hate" strict definitions.

What could be happening this.
A) You're very good with prepositional logic. Again, I insist, this is not a question of skill. Your MBTI type does not determine your intelligence, only the way you usually think. Different thinking processes could achieve the same functional conclusion.
B). You feel very natural with these chains of judgements with *strict definitions*. At this point, I suggest to you reevaluating your type. If you think you're INTJ only basing in MBTI test, you could be wrong. The way of choosing between J/P preference is poorly accurate. The best you can do is thinking deeply about cognitive jungian functions and which of them you have. If you have already done this, then it's much more probable you're really an INTJ.

Take a look to this thread, for the functions definitions and it's properties and you will see how Ni Vs Ti works:
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...iled-descriptions-each-function-attitude.html


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

I'll try to describe what Ni is for me.

Everything is part of a system. Objects are connected with their properties, including emotional reactions to them, and with other objects. When I think of anything, I don't think of it directly, but I reference a part in the system. From there, I can follow connections to other parts. There are different ways to reference a point in the system - for example by using symbols. An illustration: I connect people's personalities (not MBTI, but character traits and so on) with colors (two colors for every person). A persons personality is a point in a spectrum of personalities, and I can superimpose spectrums of colors on that and define the same point with colors. (However, most of that is unconscious.) Now, when confronted with a problem, I reference the parts of the system that correspond with it, and from there connections are followed and evaluated until arriving at a common point that connects all the initial points. This is the solution. It already exists, and only has to be perceived (which is why you can decide with a perceiving function). If there is no possible solution, or too many of them, new information has to be acquired to either build more connections or to exclude some. This method of problem solving is very efficient, because the brain can unconsciously reference many points at once, but only few consciously. It's only rather useless in areas with little or no preexisting knowledge, and it's more difficult to find out the exact reasoning path, because it's not automatically made conscious.

I hope this makes any sense to you at all...


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

Holunder said:


> I'll try to describe what Ni is for me.
> 
> Everything is part of a system. Objects are connected with their properties, including emotional reactions to them, and with other objects. When I think of anything, I don't think of it directly, but I reference a part in the system. From there, I can follow connections to other parts. There are different ways to reference a point in the system - for example by using symbols. An illustration: I connect people's personalities (not MBTI, but character traits and so on) with colors (two colors for every person). A persons personality is a point in a spectrum of personalities, and I can superimpose spectrums of colors on that and define the same point with colors. (However, most of that is unconscious.) Now, when confronted with a problem, I reference the parts of the system that correspond with it, and from there connections are followed and evaluated until arriving at a common point that connects all the initial points. This is the solution. It already exists, and only has to be perceived (which is why you can decide with a perceiving function). If there is no possible solution, or too many of them, new information has to be acquired to either build more connections or to exclude some. This method of problem solving is very efficient, because the brain can unconsciously reference many points at once, but only few consciously. It's only rather useless in areas with little or no preexisting knowledge, and it's more difficult to find out the exact reasoning path, because it's not automatically made conscious.
> 
> I hope this makes any sense to you at all...


An interesting description. "Follow the connections" is an accurate way of describing Ni function, because introverted perception works in a sequential way (Si and Ni) whereas extroverted perception works by "all information at the same time".
You've conviced me about perception functions can also make "judgements". I could think similar "Ne judgements", but as my J function is internal, maybe it was difficult for me considering an internal evaluation with a P function istead a T function.

But despite of it could be very efficient, I see it as a bit innacurate. If your source of information is only (or most of the time) internal, you can easily lose the point. A bit "blind" if you want. With all information at the same time, the answer has a broader application.
It's surprising than this function could change their point of view or meanings of reality so easily; I think you can construct not only a causality chain, also a meaning chain, so you can resolve some problems only by changing meanings (really, connecting differents meanings). Interesting, really interesting.

But what's true is you dislikes strict definitions (have I lost a different chain of meanings?). We Ti users love them, because of this we're always trying to express ideas as precisely as we can. Not sure then about what's more efficient in prepositional logic, if your Ni or our Ti. Both are internal and can easily resolve these problems. Maybe you can evalute a bit faster and we can make the most accurate evaluations (less errors). I have read somewhere than Aristotle, the father of this discipline, was an INTP...

It's curious that both of we have "computer properties" but at the same time: a computer is sequential and digital; you think in a analogic but sequential way, whereas we think in a digital but "all at the same time" simultenous way. Humans are "half computers" :crazy:


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

MensSuperMateriam said:


> But despite of it could be very efficient, I see it as a bit innacurate. If your source of information is only (or most of the time) internal, you can easily lose the point. A bit "blind" if you want. With all information at the same time, the answer has a broader application.


Yes and no. My conception of reality is always in broad strokes. It becomes more accurate when I apply it (using Te).
Having no dominant extraverted sensing function doesn't mean I easily loose the point. Te always checks Ni's conclusions and connections against reality, and judges which connections should be formed. Of course, if the extraverted judging function is weak, Ni users tend to see strange connections (and form conspiracy theories :crazy, but you'd have similar problems with dominant Ti and a weak extraverted sensing function.




> It's surprising than this function could change their point of view or meanings of reality so easily; I think you can construct not only a causality chain, also a meaning chain, so you can resolve some problems only by changing meanings (really, connecting differents meanings). Interesting, really interesting.


An excellent point I hadn't thought of.




> But what's true is you dislikes strict definitions (have I lost a different chain of meanings?). We Ti users love them, because of this we're always trying to express ideas as precisely as we can. Not sure then about what's more efficient in prepositional logic, if your Ni or our Ti. Both are internal and can easily resolve these problems. Maybe you can evalute a bit faster and we can make the most accurate evaluations (less errors).


I think Ti users like strict definitions because that limits the number of possible conclusions you can draw from one aspect, thus making their thinking process easier. They make step after step, and optimize every one of them. Ni doesn't have that need for limiting possibilities, because it can easily handle many at once. Strict definitions limit the number of possible solutions. Ni constructs complete solutions, and optimizes _them_.
The advantage of Ti is probably that it isn't so dependent on experience. I noticed that when I tried playing Go. I didn't have the experience to easily see the consequences of my moves - my opponent just used Ti to deduce implications of possible moves, but when I tried it, I found it very tiring. If I had played Go very often, I would have eventually established an inner system to find out good moves, but without experience I was rather lost. But I don't think Ni deductions are less precise - except that Ni will only make them as precise as is useful in the situation.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

MensSuperMateriam said:


> The feedback process is a general thing, not only Ni. For example: my Ne generates ideas by observation of the outside world; then they're evaluated as true/false by my Ti, which uses strict definitions by its nature. But the evaluation (judgement) will again be compared with the possibilities than Ne offers (new possibilities or variations of the same possibilities), reevaluating and perfectioning the judgements with new variables that comes to play. The framework is developing (Ti) so it will also affects how Ne perceive the world, because it offers previous patterns or ways of finding them that previously worked, etc. Ne feeds Ti, Ti feeds Ne, etc etc etc. The previous judgements work also as input for the new judgements.
> 
> Without feedback, learning process is not possible. The brain will not work. It happens even not considering the jungian model. Even the smallest piece of brain works in this way (neurons). The electric impulse modify how it works; with its change, the new impulse will pass through it in a different way, but also modifying the neuron, etc.
> 
> ...


I don't know how to explain it better. Ni doesn't make decisions, I agree with that. It just comes up with conclusions. A conclusion is not a decision. Perhaps that's where you get confused with my description.

Basically, Ni passes an idea (which I called a conclusion) on to Te to think through and decide if it makes sense and Fi will tell me if it's right or wrong.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Holunder said:


> It already exists, and only has to be perceived (which is why you can decide with a perceiving function).


That's it! Exactly why I used the word "conclusion" in stead of "idea".


----------



## Everyday Ghoul (Aug 4, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> Sorry for the delay in responding. You have an impeccable grasp on function usage, as I see it. ISTPs generally mistaken themselves as NT types if the description of SP is too focused on freedom. But because we have an inclination toward resolving the problem, not just considering it or just analyzing it, we do appear more INTJ-ish. I think it’s important to note that dichotomies cannot be used in the application of how you act daily. You have to use functions. Based on our earlier discussion which seemed clear in your disclosures, you very clearly prefer introversion and intuition which just my theory would mean that your dominant function is Ni. Based on further analyses, you seem to have authenticity as a core value. The latter can only be determined by considering core temperaments. One thing to consider is again your temperament although you understandably have doubts. When I talk about temperament, I am not referring to Keirsey’s antiquated system, I am speaking of Berens’ descriptions that removes the stereotypes. As I said it seems quite clear that you may be using Ni as your dominant and Ti as your back-up. That means you can only be one type.


I've reread Psychological Types and looked through a few more sources. I would agree, that Ni was most likely my dominant function. I've been trying to mill over the consequences of using pure-streamlined perception and Fi, if anything, as a judgment, but perhaps Se just to perceive concrete truth, without actually applying a judgment, but more accepting it. In other words, the sort of mentality, that say "This research points to it as truth, therefore it is true." I'm taking that in, but not really applying judgment as to whether I agree or not. I'm not sure if that's possible. However, I do believe, that my secondary function is suppressed, to the point of being nearly unobservable, even to me. It would seem Ni dominance with no judgment would lead one to several irrational beliefs, and the amount of beliefs I have, that have absolutely no roots in reality, is quite...scary. I'm also excessively paranoid and distrustful of people, to a level, that certainly has no basis in reality. I'm wondering if something in the external functions might possibly mimic Ti usage, only because, being quite honest, NFJ types and I do_ not_ see eye to eye, because of the extroversion of their ethics. It's hard for me to necessarily differentiate ethics and ideals, but I thought it was more from an ideal stand point, that I highly valued fairness, justice, equality, and balance. Authenticity and honesty are blurred lines for me, again, probably due to no applying of a judging function, as intended. For example, my social phobia would demand me to be exceptionally submissive and compliant, to an NFJ, despite the fact, that the truth is, they'd be pissing me off and I wouldn't even like them. I've had "friends", that I quite honestly hated... They probably weren't NFJ's, but just using that as an example, to illustrate how powerful the effects of my esteem issues and social phobia are. 

Plus, in terms of ethics, I would have thought it might be more indicative of Fi, that I thought everyone should have the right to believe in what they choose. I get into a lot of arguments with NFJ's, because I hate people telling me what is right and wrong, but perhaps I've taken Fe too literally. Still, it makes some sense, that my social phobia would drive me towards tendencies, that would greatly suppress Te. I have an urgent but unsatisfiable need to exercise dominance and power, to be independent and a rock, to be knowledgeable and competent, and a mistake, that suggests stupidity on my part, is an unforgivable sin. These things would suggest NT, which should mean NTJ. However, I'm not sure, until my issues have been effectively treated, that even I can separate who I am, with the emotional issues, from who I'm not, and from who I'm intended to be. I need a much clearer grip on reality, through the development of either Te or Fe.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

MensSuperMateriam said:


> But what's true is you dislikes strict definitions (have I lost a different chain of meanings?). We Ti users love them, because of this we're always trying to express ideas as precisely as we can. Not sure then about what's more efficient in prepositional logic, if your Ni or our Ti. Both are internal and can easily resolve these problems. Maybe you can evalute a bit faster and we can make the most accurate evaluations (less errors). I have read somewhere than Aristotle, the father of this discipline, was an INTP...


I think the main issue Ni has with strict definitions is the point in the thinking process that they are applied. When it's done in the end in order to define within which limitations a logic works, then it's fine. But when it's done in the beginning, you´re limiting the possible outcomes or possible logics.


----------



## fn0rd (Mar 21, 2010)

Se - Selenium
Ni - Nickel


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Big bad wolf said:


> I've reread Psychological Types and looked through a few more sources. I would agree, that Ni was most likely my dominant function. I've been trying to mill over the consequences of using pure-streamlined perception and Fi, if anything, as a judgment, but perhaps Se just to perceive concrete truth, without actually applying a judgment, but more accepting it. In other words, the sort of mentality, that say "This research points to it as truth, therefore it is true." I'm taking that in, but not really applying judgment as to whether I agree or not. I'm not sure if that's possible.


I am not sure that is possible as well, since if Se is your 4th function in this case it will have little to no influence over a higher function per type theory. However we’re still not clear whether the secondary is any more dominant than the tertiary. It’s possible that the tertiary can be just as effective as the auxiliary. In this case, Ni-Fi or Ni-Ti would be the question. Nevertheless the only two functions I am aware of that can take in information without judging is Ne and/or Se. So your dominant seems to be apparent as is your 4th function.


Big bad wolf said:


> However, I do believe, that my secondary function is suppressed, to the point of being nearly unobservable, even to me. It would seem Ni dominance with no judgment would lead one to several irrational beliefs, and the amount of beliefs I have, that have absolutely no roots in reality, is quite...scary.


Not necessarily. Keep in mind that Berens sees Ni and Ti as look a-likes, so Ni can detach and likes complexity. I would think it’s easy to mistype what may be Ni activity as Ti. As for your secondary function being suppressed. I think this is more true of all types, more than most want to believe. There are no guarantees that we can and do develop the auxiliary function and as an INTJ told me years ago, we (introverts) can and do use our auxiliary function defensively. This is more pervasive when we have a clear-very clear preference for introversion. In that case, we may just as well skip our auxiliary function and go directly to our back-up function (tertiary). I have read nothing that says this is unhealthy. In fact Jung says it’s expected, but we do need to cultivate some extraversion or introverion, ergo develop our secondary function.


Big bad wolf said:


> I'm also excessively paranoid and distrustful of people, to a level, that certainly has no basis in reality. I'm wondering if something in the external functions might possibly mimic Ti usage, only because, being quite honest, NFJ types and I do_ not_ see eye to eye, because of the extroversion of their ethics.


A very good point Wolf. As you may be aware ISTPs have little in common with other SPs and may relate better to NT types. In real life, I am not going to keep time with SP types, so I find myself having very few intimate relationships. I see this being no different with the INFJ type. I have read that INFJ is the most conceptual of NF types. The Ni can make for someone who appears very heady and keep in mind per Berens, Fe also disconnects from people. Jung says of both Si and Ni types:


> They cannot see that their outward-going expression is, as a matter of fact, also of an inferior character. ….furthermore, their mode of expression lacks that flowing warmth to the object which alone can have convincing force. …..On the contrary, these types show very often a brusque, repelling demeanour towards the outer world, although of this they are quite unaware, and have not the least intention of showing it.





Big bad wolf said:


> It's hard for me to necessarily differentiate ethics and ideals, but I thought it was more from an ideal stand point, that I highly valued fairness, justice, equality, and balance. Authenticity and honesty are blurred lines for me, again, probably due to no applying of a judging function, as intended. *For example, my social phobia would demand me to be exceptionally submissive and compliant, to an NFJ, despite the fact, that the truth is, they'd be pissing me off and I wouldn't even like them. I've had "friends", that I quite honestly hated...*


Remember the opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. I think that an INTJ would easily disconnect and say I don’t give a damn about you. Someone using Fe would have a feeling toward another person whether it’s positive or negative.


Big bad wolf said:


> They probably weren't NFJ's, but just using that as an example, to illustrate how powerful the effects of my esteem issues and social phobia are.


I don’t have my copy of Lenore Thomson any longer, but it would benefit you to read the description of how Ni is used.


Big bad wolf said:


> Plus, in terms of ethics, I would have thought it might be more indicative of Fi, that I thought everyone should have the right to believe in what they choose. I get into a lot of arguments with NFJ's, because I hate people telling me what is right and wrong, but perhaps I've taken Fe too literally.


Actually from what I understand, Te types see “right or wrong” and Fe types sees “good or bad”, but I will have to research that. However that is a finite distinction and probably is not something that can be used for to discern Fe and Te.


Big bad wolf said:


> Still, it makes some sense, that my social phobia would drive me towards tendencies, that would greatly suppress Te. I have an urgent but unsatisfiable need to exercise dominance and power, to be independent and a rock, to be knowledgeable and competent, and a mistake, that suggests stupidity on my part, is an unforgivable sin. These things would suggest NT, which should mean NTJ. However, I'm not sure, until my issues have been effectively treated, that even I can separate who I am, with the emotional issues, from who I'm not, and from who I'm intended to be. I need a much clearer grip on reality, through the development of either Te or Fe.


So you could prefer NT-SJ or NF-SJ as your primary temperaments. You Te, but I have no reason to believe that Ni-Fe can do the same thing. A rule of thumb that I have learned due to gender expectations by society, is that females confused with T/F may be over identifying with social expectations of females therefore are thinking types and vice-versa for males. 

If you are comfortable with the fact that you are Ni, then you have won half the battle thus far. The question now becomes are you INTJ or INFJ. This is something that I have to question always about these two types. If I have an affinity toward introversion therefore effecting my secondary function, then which would be more conceptual and less feeling Ni-Fi or Ni-Ti? On the other hand if you do have a good use of your auxiliary function, then you’re considering Ni-Te or Ni-Fe. But it must be kept in mind that Fe


> Extraverted Feeling - When particular people are out of our presence or awareness, we can then adjust to new people or situations. This process helps us "grease the wheels" of social interaction. Often, the process of extraverted Feeling seems to involve a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure. Associated behaviors might include remembering birthdays, finding just the right card for a person and selecting a gift based on what a person likes. Keeping in touch, laughing at jokes when others laugh, and trying to get people to act kindly to each other also involve extraverted Feeling. Using this process, we respond according to expressed or even unexpressed wants and needs of others. We may ask people what they want or need or self-disclose to prompt them to talk more about themselves. This often sparks conversation and lets us know more about them so we can better adjust our behavior to them.


Whereas Te:


> Extraverted Thinking - helps us organize our environment and ideas through charts, tables, graphs, flow charts, outlines, and so on. Sometimes the organizing of extraverted Thinking is more abstract, like a logical argument that is made to "rearrange" someone else's thinking process! An example is when we point out logical consequences and say, "If your do this, then that will happen." In written or verbal communication, extraverted Thinking helps us easily follow someone else's logic, sequence, or organization. It also helps us notice when something is missing, like when someone says he or she is going to talk about four topics and talks about only three. In general, it allows us to compartmentalize many aspects of our lives so we can do what is necessary to accomplish our objectives.


Wolf I am not comfortable in looking at type from a reason by deduction. It’s unhealthy and always suspect. So what if we look from a different angle of Fe or Te? Dario Nardi wrote a book called, “8 Keys To Self-Leadership: From Awareness To Action” In his book he provides some examples of what Fe and Te look like and how much we may use a particular function. In this case be honest with yourself and determine which function may apply to you:

*Score 1 point:*

Easily discern other people’s needs, preferences, and values;

Feel inclined to be responsible for and take care of others feelings;

Help people feel comfortable by engaging in hosting and care taking;


*Score 2 points:*

Recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along;

Merge and feel intimate oneness with other people;


* Score 3 points: *

Reciprocate appreciation and honor the support others give you;

Easily take on someone else’s needs and values as your own;

Easily communicate personally to all members of a group to feel unity;

*-OR- *

*Score 1 point:*

Usually know the time and what point you’re at in a process;

Determine success by measurements or other objective methods, such as the time taken;

Follow a straight line of reasoning;


*Score 2 points:*

Stick to making decisions based on impersonal measures, such as points earned;

Conceive a comprehensive plan to maximize progress toward goals;


*Score 3 points:*

Mobilize resources and supervise implementation of a multi-part plan;

Construct an argument to convince someone using evidence clearly in front of you both;

Layout steps to others to complete tasks in time – and resource efficient ways;


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

Holunder said:


> Yes and no. My conception of reality is always in broad strokes. It becomes more accurate when I apply it (using Te).
> Having no dominant extraverted sensing function doesn't mean I easily loose the point. Te always checks Ni's conclusions and connections against reality, and judges which connections should be formed.


True. Agree.



Holunder said:


> Of course, if the extraverted judging function is weak, Ni users tend to see strange connections (and form conspiracy theories :crazy, but you'd have similar problems with dominant Ti and a weak extraverted sensing function.


Yes. When my Ne is not working properly, I have a lot of problems, but in this case is not "conspiranoid mind" but "I don't know what to do, I don't know how to do...". A division by zero :laughing: A state of isolation when I don't know how to resolve a concrete and probably non logic problem.



Holunder said:


> I think Ti users like strict definitions because that limits the number of possible conclusions you can draw from one aspect, thus making their thinking process easier. They make step after step, and optimize every one of them. Ni doesn't have that need for limiting possibilities, because it can easily handle many at once. Strict definitions limit the number of possible solutions. Ni constructs complete solutions, and optimizes _them_.


Not exactly. Being an introverted function it's narrower and deeper than an extroverted conterpart. But the same happens with your Ni. Handling "many at once" as you described is an extroverted style. But as perhaps we're not speaking about the same idea, I'll precise it.

If you're saying than Ni manages all possibilities at the same time, I disagree. Pi's functions (Si and Ni) are linear in their way of thinking, whereas Pe's (Se and Ne) uses "all the information at the same time". Ni can manage few ideas at the same time, Ne a lot of them. But Ni can seek for all consequences (steps in a chain) of the few ideas, Ne few consequences of all the ideas. Ni: all steps, few ideas; Ne: few steps, all ideas. But of course with your Ni you can scan the whole spectrum of the possibilities it offers to you. You can cover "all of your world" but by a linear method (not strictly one chain at a time, but very few of them). The fact that you can cover "all of your internal world" with Ni maybe makes you think it handles many possibilities, but in fact only a few of them, because Ni does not "see" all the information *as a consequence of being internal* (in a relative way, I mean, Ni can manage the same quantity of information than Ne do, but the portion used every time is smaller).

Now Ti. It's also internal, so it can't also manage all the information at the same time (Ni cant's "see", Ti can't "judge"). It uses strict definitions then. But it's not only a caprice, it's a need. Ne offers "all the information". But it's impossible to achieve a concrete conclusion with "all the information". You need to break it down in small pieces and putting them in a box you can manage (definitions). Using a computer analogy, it cannot process an analogic picture because it contains infinite information. You must digitalize it previously. Ne obtains information from the external world and passes to Ti. In the working process, when the image has been perceived and "digitalized", it is stored in memory and analized by an internal algorithm which ignores the world while the process in happening. Then a conclusion is achieved and stored and the focus returns to Ne...

But strict definitions is not really a handicap because although Ti works with them, *the definitions are only fixed while Ti is evaluating*. Ne can offer a new concept or a new variation of the same concept which Ti will reevaluate... it's a continuum made from discontinuities. Something like Band Theory in metals (I'm not sure if you know this concept). The band, despite of being made for discrete electronic states, seems to be a continuum and in fact work as it because the separation of these states is infinitesimal. 

In fact, Ni works more in a linear way than Ti, because Ni is "inductive" whereas Ti is "deductive" (well, shades of grey, not exactly black or white).

Ni will start with less information and Ti will digitalize it for evaluating (fixed concepts) so bot thinking processes, NiTe and NeTi, losses some kind of information... depending of the task one will be more efficient than the other.



Holunder said:


> The advantage of Ti is probably that it isn't so dependent on experience. I noticed that when I tried playing Go. I didn't have the experience to easily see the consequences of my moves - my opponent just used Ti to deduce implications of possible moves, but when I tried it, I found it very tiring. If I had played Go very often, I would have eventually established an inner system to find out good moves, but without experience I was rather lost. But I don't think Ni deductions are less precise - except that Ni will only make them as precise as is useful in the situation.


You're right, agree with the essence of this paragraph and its last sentence. You uses this game as an example, and in chess Ni users are usually better than Ti users (you think about all the consequences or steps of a concrete movement).


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

Peter said:


> I think the main issue Ni has with strict definitions is the point in the thinking process that they are applied. When it's done in the end in order to define within which limitations a logic works, then it's fine. But when it's done in the beginning, you´re limiting the possible outcomes or possible logics.


Not really. Ni is not more "clever" than Ti in the way you're thinking. They are not conscious processes, so a Ni user will ot think "I sould not fix the meaninings in order to not limiting myself". It's a natural trend in every user. 

Although Ni will not start with completely fixed concepts, as Ti do, the source of information of Ti is Ne, which sees "more" than Ni, because Ni is linear and Ne not (all the picture at the same time). I say "more" not about the whole quantity of information but about what portion of this quantity is managed every time. Also, Ti concepts are fixed only while evaluating; they're not permanetly fixed. The internaction of Ne with Ti is constantly adjusting the definitions.

Both unconscious process lose some information. In my answer to @holunder I explained this.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

MensSuperMateriam said:


> Not really. Ni is not more "clever" than Ti in the way you're thinking. They are not conscious processes, so a Ni user will ot think "I sould not fix the meaninings in order to not limiting myself". It's a natural trend in every user.
> 
> Although Ni will not start with completely fixed concepts, as Ti do, the source of information of Ti is Ne, which sees "more" than Ni, because Ni is linear and Ne not (all the picture at the same time). I say "more" not about the whole quantity of information but about what portion of this quantity is managed every time. Also, Ti concepts are fixed only while evaluating; they're not permanetly fixed. The internaction of Ne with Ti is constantly adjusting the definitions.
> 
> Both unconscious process lose some information. In my answer to @holunder I explained this.


You still have difficulties with when I talk about what happens within the Ni process, judging it as if it is something I do conciously. But that's not what I meant. I guess it's also difficult to describe in words, a process that doesn't use words. It's simply awareness and it's an awareness that only appears when Ni comes to a conclusion.


Perhaps you can talk a bit about Ne seeing more than Ni because I'm not sure if that's really true. The way I look at it, is that Ne makes the user aware of all the decision points (all the ideas) while Ni makes those decisions on its own without making the user aware of the decision points. Only the final outcome will surface.

This is what makes an INTJ so sure of him/her self. This together with Te and Fi. (it's the combination and order of these functions that create this confidence.) Simplified it goes like: Conclusion -> makes sense -> It's right.

So Ni is actually also seeing as much as Ne, but doesn't make the user aware of it all, but for sure it considered all the decision points.


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

Peter said:


> You still have difficulties with when I talk about what happens within the Ni process, judging it as if it is something I do conciously. But that's not what I meant. I guess it's also difficult to describe in words, a process that doesn't use words. It's simply awareness and it's an awareness that only appears when Ni comes to a conclusion.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can talk a bit about Ne seeing more than Ni because I'm not sure if that's really true. The way I look at it, is that Ne makes the user aware of all the decision points (all the ideas) while Ni makes those decisions on its own without making the user aware of the decision points. Only the final outcome will surface.
> ...



^That's basically it. Ni sees all the connections, but the majority will not become conscious, because they are judged to be not meaningful in the situation. The end result looks like a linear decision, but isn't.
It's hard for an Ni user to consciously see all the connections, but I'm usually aware they're there in a vague way. If Ni would just follow a few lines of reasoning until the end, it would be nothing but a slightly changed form of Ti; in fact it is something completely different.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Holunder said:


> ^That's basically it. Ni sees all the connections, but the majority will not become conscious, because they are judged to be not meaningful in the situation. The end result looks like a linear decision, but isn't.
> It's hard for an Ni user to consciously see all the connections, but I'm usually aware they're there in a vague way. If Ni would just follow a few lines of reasoning until the end, it would be nothing but a slightly changed form of Ti; in fact it is something completely different.


Perhaps this is just a matter of semantics, but I don't think tat Ni judges connections to be not meaningful. Instead, they are decision points where Ni automatically analises the probabilities and chooses the most likely option. Then goes on to the next connection, and so on until it comes to a conclusion and only the conclusion we become aware of. (this is the simple logical explanation, obviously, you can put this in more dimensions where multiple paths are analized and assigned probabilities as well. When this happens in a conversation you sometimes have to wait a while before an INTJ starts talking again.)

Ne does a nasty thing (from my INTJ point of view), it makes the person aware of every connection and needs another function to decide which way to go.

INTJ's don't use their second function (Te) to make these decisions, but rather use it to figure out how Ni came to this conclusion. It's why we often know what before we know how and this is why it's sometimes difficult to explain things to others, especially when it's people that prefer to take 1 step at the time.


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

Peter said:


> Perhaps this is just a matter of semantics, but I don't think tat Ni judges connections to be not meaningful. Instead, they are decision points where Ni automatically analises the probabilities and chooses the most likely option. Then goes on to the next connection, and so on until it comes to a conclusion and only the conclusion we become aware of. (this is the simple logical explanation, obviously, you can put this is more dimensions where multiple paths are analized and assigned probabilities as well. When this happens in a conversation you sometimes have to wait a while before an INTJ starts talking again.)


You're right, it wasn't phrased quite correctly. Ni rejects whole series of connections when they lead to no solution, and gives a lower priority to series of connections that lead to a more disadvantageous solution.

Another great thing about Ni is that it can come up with several different solutions to a problem and with the corresponding advantages and disadvantages.



> Ne does a nasty thing (from my INTJ point of view), it makes the person aware of every connection and needs another function to decide which way to go.


I quite honestly admire Ne. I would never trade my Ni for it, but it's amazing what funny and creative ideas my ENFP sister can come up with.



> INTJ's don't use their second function (Te) to make these decisions, but rather use it to figure out how Ni came to this conclusion. It's why we often know what before we know how and this is why it's sometimes difficult to explain things to others, especially when it's people that prefer to take 1 step at the time.


I think Te (as well as Fi) influences the way the system is built, which Ni uses to find solutions. So indirectly, Te _is_ used to make decisions.
For me, one of the reasons why it's difficult to explain things is that I conceptualize in a rather vague, and often symbolic, way, and this is just not very easy to put into words. But what you described definitely plays an important role, too.


----------



## Everyday Ghoul (Aug 4, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> *Score 1 point:*
> 
> Easily discern other people’s needs, preferences, and values;
> 
> ...


I'm going to spend some more time with this list, but, at the moment, I'm at ten to five Te/Fe, with Te clearly leading; answering as honestly as I possibly can. 

I have noted some similarity in thought, between some supposed ESTJ's and myself, that I think would come from more of a Te perspective. For instance, getting frustrated, when people take things out of there spot and fail to return them to that spot. I feel like I have really good grasp of Si, more than sufficient enough to knock SJ out. I know you're uncomfortable with typing by deduction, but it's always sort of been my mentality to "puzzle build", this way, through patterns and categorizations, with what doesn't fit and what does, where there can be no concrete and definitive measures to pinpoint fact. Type theory, in my mind, can't really be definitive, because of so many variables. I would say, that my Te didn't fit the dom perspective, in the ESTJ's, and may even be applied "differently". I did note, that in Psychological Types, Jung mentioned Te working differently when applied mostly to the world of thought, which would be how it was used by me. He didn't seem to elaborate much, but discussed the perspective of the philosopher, briefly. Perhaps, as some of the other INTJ's are saying, subtle judgments are more apt to be applied in terms of thought. What I'm trying to say is very clear in my head, but not coming out very articulated, at all. lol

I'd also like to spend some more time trying to understand flow between cognitive functions. The majority of my time extroverting, doesn't involve the personal, but rather just taking in information (data, facts, statistics) or applying it, for instance, adding dark chocolate to my diet, then switching to cacao nubs, because the initial information said dark chocolate was good for your heart, but further research pointed out, that it was high in saturated fat, and cacao nubs contained all the healthy benefits, less saturated fat, and may retain even more of the beneficial materials, than the chocolate, because of the process typically used to make chocolate. My time introverting, is spent in complete disconnection, piecing things together in my head, waiting for an answer to "pop up", that makes sense, or that "Aha!" moment. 

Furthermore, it isn't just concerned with a logical perspective, it's an encompassing whole, which should suggest a subjective perceiving function. I do feel like I start at Z, and back build the rest of the alphabet, to understand and answer, to myself, "Why/How Z fits?" In the realm of type theory, I can't quite do this with all types and all functions, leaving me with fuzzy pictures, that I can't justify, but feel that I "know" are true. However, where I have worked it out, it all makes sense. For example, in the case of the alleged ISTP mindset. I feel like I get that one. Take in information, deduce it to logical principles, apply said principles. Thus, we see terms like mechanics, because it *should* conjure up the image of an individual who understands the principles of advanced logical systems, and who would prefer to act with his environment, in a non-personal way, by applying his knowledge through physically working with his logic.

It gets a bit fuzzier, when the perceiving function is subjective. As I said, I get the sense, that if we looked at functions like Ti, Fe, as pieces of a pizza, Ni/Si would be the whole pizza. Ni/Si are unconcerned with and unbound by specifics. I'm really doing a terrible job of articulating my thoughts. lol Hmm...looking at it this way, then, I feel like the book/movie Fight Club is a great example of Ni, where judgment would need to be applied in the domain of thought. Sussing out whether it is Fe/Te/Fi/Ti is* incredibly *difficult, as its more like a subtle influence on the whole. It's clear to see, however, that his viewpoint is entirely subjective, but makes sense, when applied. For instance, when he put the gun to the clerk and threatened his life, he knew he would appreciate his life, more than he ever had. This is very similar to how I think. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, it's applicable, but what I'm unclear about, is how the functions flow to "know" this. Where do these perceptions come from? What other functions are at work, to build this "knowledge"? Ni, then, becomes like a keen sensitivity to perceptions, as much as Si is a keen sensitivity to the subtlest sensory cues. It knows what you can do to manipulate the thoughts, actions, perceptions, of another, giving you an incredible awareness of the consequences of your actions, far before you even take them. Where does anything else come into play, though? That's what I'm missing. It's difficult for me to see where Ni/Si aren't like a complete picture, in and of themselves. Is it merely when we take actions, like actually incorporating the chocolate/cacao nubs into my diet, that we "see" the judging function at work...in some sense of the word "see"? lol


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

Peter said:


> *You still have difficulties with when I talk about what happens within the Ni process*, judging it as if it is something I do conciously. But that's not what I meant. I guess it's also difficult to describe in words, a process that doesn't use words. It's simply awareness and it's an awareness that only appears when Ni comes to a conclusion.


I could have difficulties about the bolded sentence, but it's a mere question of our "different languages" TiNe and NiTe in the conversation. The same way I could have problems "catching" the NiTe ideas, you could have problems with my TiNe ideas. Nothing new, I could offer a lot of former threads where *mutual* misunderstanding between an Ni dom user (INxJ) and me is evident. I remarked mutual, because Ni uses also have problems. The typical effect is this: Ni uses speaks in "diffuse" terms and my Ti function insists in precising the points. But at the same time, the Ni user usually thinks a Ti user only sees or thinks what he's saying in the strict terms of Ti, and it's an error. The ideas are not generated by Ti, are generated by Ne!. Ti is the "framework" for these ideas, cleaning and ordering them, not the source. I mean, a TiNe user is as intuitive as a NiTe user, but the Ni user usually thinks that not because his intuition is self-focused (Pi). Take the example of Einstein, the paradigm of an INTP. Without strong intuition, I doubt he could change the vision of what gravity or space and time are...

I remember having used the word "unconscious" when speaking about Ni so no, I don't think you use it consciously. But this happens for every function, not only Ni. A Ti user does not "box" the ideas consciously, simply it happens. Ne does not generate ideas because the Ne user thinks "I want to see all at the same time". The brainstorm of multiple connections goes happening.



Peter said:


> Perhaps you can talk a bit about Ne seeing more than Ni because I'm not sure if that's really true. The way I look at it, is that Ne makes the user aware of all the decision points (all the ideas) while Ni makes those decisions on its own without making the user aware of the decision points. Only the final outcome will surface.
> 
> So Ni is actually also seeing as much as Ne, but doesn't make the user aware of it all, but for sure it considered all the decision points.





Peter said:


> Ne does a nasty thing (from my INTJ point of view), it makes the person aware of every connection and needs another function to decide which way to go.


Maybe I dind't express the idea whith enough precision. I remarked the fact that in absolute terms Ni can manage the same amount of information than Ne. What I ponted is, *has happens with all introverted functions, Ni is deeper but narrower than Ne*. Ne sees few steps for a lot of ideas; Ni see more steps but for less ideas. Ne is an horizontal rectangle whereas Ni is a vertical rectangle. But both of them could have the same area. When I said "see more" about Ne, I was refering to the fact that Ne is broader, not that a Ne user could achieve conclusions that are impossible for Ni's (or vice-versa).

At the point you insist in the fact that Ni is unconscious and Ne is conscious, it's not true. All functions are subconscious processes, as Jung described them when speaking about this model. Are "subconscious algorithms" that generate "conscious ideas" if you want. So no, Ne user is not aware more than Ni or Ni more "automatic" than Ne. They are aware or automatic in its own way. 
In a Ne way of thinking, we're automatically combining all the possible elements of reality which are perceived, and when a pattern is detected, then it "emerges" to the conscious as an idea or conclusion as you do.



Peter said:


> INTJ's don't use their second function (Te) to make these decisions, but rather use it to figure out how Ni came to this conclusion. It's why we often know what before we know how and this is why it's sometimes difficult to explain things to others, especially when it's people that prefer to take 1 step at the time.


The task of Te is testing Ni ideas, conclusions, in the external world, in your case, by "experimentation". The task of Ti is testing Ne ideas, conclusions, in our internal world, in our case, by logical consistency. Again I insist, it's not the task of Ti generating ideas or conclusions, only validating them as you do (or should do) with your Te.

About steps, the internal nature of Ni makes it more "one step at a time" than Ne. You could see all the steps of the chain, but I see more chains. "Your microprocessor work at higher speed but has less cores; our microprocessor work at less speed but has more cores", as an analogy.



Peter said:


> This is what makes an INTJ so sure of him/her self. This together with Te and Fi. (it's the combination and order of these functions that create this confidence.) Simplified it goes like: Conclusion -> makes sense -> It's right.


The fact than an INTJ could be so sure about himself/herself is not a virtue, it's a deffect if you analize why it happens. Your "self-confidence" happens by a insufficient use of your extroverted aux funcion (Te). 

Your Ni generates ideas without needing the external world, because it's a P function (source of information) and also internal. You can make your conclusions with Ni.
But making a conclusion does not imply that these conslusions are true (I could think I can fly...). You've to validate them in some way, using a judging function. Two option are possible for you:
A) Te function. Externally-oriented, it judges by exterimentation, testing if these "internal" ideas has a equivalence in the real world or not. With Ni and Te working together, all goes OK.
B) Fi function. Internally-oriented, it judges by a personal framework, which is not externally-based. What suggests Fi to you? It offers the feeling of "being right". It can't judge about true/false in logic terms, but feebacks the internal focus what reinforces the ideas of Ni. Well, the confidence is generated by Ni (taking former success as a reference point) but your Fi function support every feeling you're generating because "your feelings are your feelings".
*At this point, you could lose all objectivity thinking "I'm always right"*. This is the same process that makes INTJ's prone to conspiracy theories when Te is not working propoerly: a conclusion is achieved and taken as true without the need of proofs, which sometimes is the "truth nobody else sees except me" (conspiracy) and sometimes is "my logic conclusions are always right" (self-confidence).

Self-confidence is a virtue but in a small quantities; an excess of it implies a disconnection with reality (loss of all objectivity).


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

I like the way you describe things, very detailed. I think we´re pretty much on the same page.

Just commenting on the self-confidence part. It's a defect indeed when you start to think you´re always right, but I don't think it's a defect when, like you mentioned, Te is working properly. In a balanced person, self-confidence is a virtue. It get's you to believe in things, go after them and make things happen.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Big bad wolf said:


> I have noted some similarity in thought, between some supposed ESTJ's and myself, that I think would come from more of a Te perspective. For instance, getting frustrated, when people take things out of there spot and fail to return them to that spot.


I am not sure that would be Te, but it makes sense that it would be. I loathe people using my things and not replacing them where they found them or allowing others to use them. This seems to be an issue that introverts in general would have a problem with.


Big bad wolf said:


> I feel like I have really good grasp of Si, more than sufficient enough to knock SJ out. I know you're uncomfortable with typing by deduction, but it's always sort of been my mentality to "puzzle build", this way, through patterns and categorizations, with what doesn't fit and what does, where there can be no concrete and definitive measures to pinpoint fact. Type theory, in my mind, can't really be definitive, because of so many variables.


I agree wholeheartedly that our make-up is so complex that we struggle to determine our own best fit type, let alone others.


Big bad wolf said:


> I would say, that my Te didn't fit the dom perspective, in the ESTJ's, and may even be applied "differently". I did note, that in Psychological Types, Jung mentioned Te working differently when applied mostly to the world of thought, which would be how it was used by me. He didn't seem to elaborate much, but discussed the perspective of the philosopher, briefly. Perhaps, as some of the other INTJ's are saying, subtle judgments are more apt to be applied in terms of thought. What I'm trying to say is very clear in my head, but not coming out very articulated, at all. Lol.


Based on everything that I have read, the inability to articulate stems from the Ni vision being so large to where the INJ use finds it hard to articulate. The Te and Fe are just incapable of doing it.


Big bad wolf said:


> I'd also like to spend some more time trying to understand flow between cognitive functions. The majority of my time extroverting, doesn't involve the personal, but rather just taking in information (data, facts, statistics) or applying it, for instance, adding dark chocolate to my diet, then switching to cacao nubs, because the initial information said dark chocolate was good for your heart, but further research pointed out, that it was high in saturated fat, and cacao nubs contained all the healthy benefits, less saturated fat, and may retain even more of the beneficial materials, than the chocolate, because of the process typically used to make chocolate. My time introverting, is spent in complete disconnection, piecing things together in my head, waiting for an answer to "pop up", that makes sense, or that "Aha!" moment.


The more you become familiar with principles of type, the easier it will be to move things around to theorize how they work. However this may be less forth coming to someone using Ni or Si since you guys seem to think sequentially with a need for before-middle-after. I think taking the theory apart and putting it back together can be done most easily by using Ti. As for your examples of taking in information clearly shows a propensity toward Se.


Big bad wolf said:


> Furthermore, it isn't just concerned with a logical perspective, it's an encompassing whole, which should suggest a subjective perceiving function. I do feel like I start at Z, and back build the rest of the alphabet, to understand and answer, to myself, "Why/How Z fits?" In the realm of type theory, I can't quite do this with all types and all functions, leaving me with fuzzy pictures, that I can't justify, but feel that I "know" are true. However, where I have worked it out, it all makes sense. For example, in the case of the alleged ISTP mindset. I feel like I get that one. Take in information, deduce it to logical principles, apply said principles. Thus, we see terms like mechanics, because it *should* conjure up the image of an individual who understands the principles of advanced logical systems, and who would prefer to act with his environment, in a non-personal way, by applying his knowledge through physically working with his logic.


Your statement reminds me of Berens/Nardi’s description of Ni and Ti as look a-likes:


> Ti and Ni are often accompanied by a sense of detachment and disconnection. With both there tends to be comfort with complexity. The difference is that when we are engaging in Ti, we usually have a clear sense of the principles or models something is judged against, whereas with Ni, an impressionistic image forms in the mind.





Big bad wolf said:


> It gets a bit fuzzier, when the perceiving function is subjective. As I said, I get the sense, that if we looked at functions like Ti, Fe, as pieces of a pizza, Ni/Si would be the whole pizza. Ni/Si are unconcerned with and unbound by specifics. I'm really doing a terrible job of articulating my thoughts. Lol


You’re actually doing a great job and I enjoy your thought process Wolf.


Big bad wolf said:


> Hmm...looking at it this way, then, I feel like the book/movie Fight Club is a great example of Ni, where judgment would need to be applied in the domain of thought. Sussing out whether it is Fe/Te/Fi/Ti is* incredibly *difficult, as its more like a subtle influence on the whole. It's clear to see, however, that his viewpoint is entirely subjective, but makes sense, when applied. For instance, when he put the gun to the clerk and threatened his life, he knew he would appreciate his life, more than he ever had. This is very similar to how I think. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, it's applicable, but what I'm unclear about, is how the functions flow to "know" this. Where do these perceptions come from? What other functions are at work, to build this "knowledge"? Ni, then, becomes like a keen sensitivity to perceptions, as much as Si is a keen sensitivity to the subtlest sensory cues. It knows what you can do to manipulate the thoughts, actions, perceptions, of another, giving you an incredible awareness of the consequences of your actions, far before you even take them. Where does anything else come into play, though? That's what I'm missing. It's difficult for me to see where Ni/Si aren't like a complete picture, in and of themselves. Is it merely when we take actions, like actually incorporating the chocolate/cacao nubs into my diet, that we "see" the judging function at work...in some sense of the word "see"? lol


Again, you have a good grasp of how the functions work, but it may take some development of Ti to feel comfortable in dissecting the principle and playing around with it. I learned to look at the system wholistically and breaking it down by compartments. First I look at the flow as a fluid gauge where an increase in one thing decreases it’s opposite (i.e, more Ni=less Se, more Fi=less Te, etc). Again Jung gives no indication that after the dominant function, our inferior functions cannot be equal. The only thing he says is that the auxiliary is always present. So it would seem natural for a person to alternate between dominant and tertiary functions, although the tertiary may at best be equal, but never greater than, the auxiliary function. I maintain a focus on the attitudes, which I believe make the functions what they are. I don’t see a greater/lesser use of thinking, felling, sensing or intuiting themselves, but once you add an orientation, it’s the extraversion and introversion that creates the strength and weakness of the function. As always great discussions with you Wolf.


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

MensSuperMateriam said:


> Maybe I dind't express the idea whith enough precision. I remarked the fact that in absolute terms Ni can manage the same amount of information than Ne. What I ponted is, *has happens with all introverted functions, Ni is deeper but narrower than Ne*. Ne sees few steps for a lot of ideas; Ni see more steps but for less ideas. Ne is an horizontal rectangle whereas Ni is a vertical rectangle. But both of them could have the same area. When I said "see more" about Ne, I was refering to the fact that Ne is broader, not that a Ne user could achieve conclusions that are impossible for Ni's (or vice-versa).


I still don't think that Ni sees less connections than Ne (it only discards many again), but as we have no means of comparing them, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.




> At the point you insist in the fact that Ni is unconscious and Ne is conscious, it's not true. All functions are subconscious processes, as Jung described them when speaking about this model. Are "subconscious algorithms" that generate "conscious ideas" if you want. So no, Ne user is not aware more than Ni or Ni more "automatic" than Ne. They are aware or automatic in its own way.
> In a Ne way of thinking, we're automatically combining all the possible elements of reality which are perceived, and when a pattern is detected, then it "emerges" to the conscious as an idea or conclusion as you do.


I will try to give an example to illustrate how Ni and Ne appear to work to me.
Let's say we have a situation A. Ne connects A to B, C, D, E and F and reports them back. Ni also connects A to B, C, D, E and F, then connects B to B* and E to E*, but rejects C, D and F because it judges them to be irrelevant to the situation, and reports back only B* and E*. Only what is reported back becomes conscious.




> About steps, the internal nature of Ni makes it more "one step at a time" than Ne. You could see all the steps of the chain, but I see more chains. "Your microprocessor work at higher speed but has less cores; our microprocessor work at less speed but has more cores", as an analogy.


That you only see few chains with Ni doesn't mean that Ni hasn't evaluated many more. They just don't become conscious.




> The fact than an INTJ could be so sure about himself/herself is not a virtue, it's a deffect if you analize why it happens. Your "self-confidence" happens by a insufficient use of your extroverted aux funcion (Te).
> 
> [...]
> 
> Self-confidence is a virtue but in a small quantities; an excess of it implies a disconnection with reality (loss of all objectivity).


You're confusing self-confidence with stubbornness. Self-confidence actually makes you more able to accept criticism and question your own opinion, because you are sure of your own worth and don't feel that threatened by the possibility of being wrong.


----------



## Everyday Ghoul (Aug 4, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> I am not sure that would be Te, but it makes sense that it would be. I loathe people using my things and not replacing them where they found them or allowing others to use them. This seems to be an issue that introverts in general would have a problem with. I agree wholeheartedly that our make-up is so complex that we struggle to determine our own best fit type, let alone others. Based on everything that I have read, the inability to articulate stems from the Ni vision being so large to where the INJ use finds it hard to articulate. The Te and Fe are just incapable of doing it. The more you become familiar with principles of type, the easier it will be to move things around to theorize how they work. However this may be less forth coming to someone using Ni or Si since you guys seem to think sequentially with a need for before-middle-after. I think taking the theory apart and putting it back together can be done most easily by using Ti. As for your examples of taking in information clearly shows a propensity toward Se. Your statement reminds me of Berens/Nardi’s description of Ni and Ti as look a-likes: You’re actually doing a great job and I enjoy your thought process Wolf. Again, you have a good grasp of how the functions work, but it may take some development of Ti to feel comfortable in dissecting the principle and playing around with it. I learned to look at the system wholistically and breaking it down by compartments. First I look at the flow as a fluid gauge where an increase in one thing decreases it’s opposite (i.e, more Ni=less Se, more Fi=less Te, etc). Again Jung gives no indication that after the dominant function, our inferior functions cannot be equal. The only thing he says is that the auxiliary is always present. So it would seem natural for a person to alternate between dominant and tertiary functions, although the tertiary may at best be equal, but never greater than, the auxiliary function. I maintain a focus on the attitudes, which I believe make the functions what they are. I don’t see a greater/lesser use of thinking, felling, sensing or intuiting themselves, but once you add an orientation, it’s the extraversion and introversion that creates the strength and weakness of the function. As always great discussions with you Wolf.


It is very hard for me to articulate my thoughts, and I have watched self-identified Ti doms, or even Ti auxiliaries, come in, and express my own thoughts, better than me, time and time again. lol Perhaps, because I'm always "looking through" things. I can even use Ti and our earlier discussions of ISTP's, as an example. I'm loathe to look at things in terms of stereotypes, because, in my mind, it's just clearly inaccurate. In my last response, I bolded the word should, before my description of the ISTP mindset, because I realize, that the people responsible for coining the term, would have had something closer to my description in mind. However, I'm well aware, that 90% of people see the term mechanic, and instantly think "Ugly guy, full of grease, and dumb as a stack of bricks." I see through that, instantly, but, initially, I'm not even sure why or how. As I said, it's like having the sense of Z and building backwards to A. Take in all this information on type theory, and, finally, it pieces together in my mind, and it's like "Oh! That's what they meant by mechanic! I get it now! Now I know why I didn't want to accept, that initial perception, and now I've answered what I was digging below the surface for!" 

I can use xNFJ's, as another example. My first online encounter with an INFJ, left a bad taste in my mouth. I felt annoyed, but didn't know why. We didn't argue. We didn't have a negative interaction, but something was off. Further interactions with more of them or even just observations of them, and I'm left with a loose sense, that they have a "holier than thou" mentality. I get the initial perception forming, at this point, but I keep "looking through", until everything fits. Further information comes in, further observations, and, finally, a light bulb goes off in my head. I understand my initial sensation of annoyance and my initial "superficial" perception, now. Fe is extroverthing ethics, therefore they're concerned with people behaving according to their ethics, therefore they spend a portion of their time interacting with others, telling them how to behave and/or how not to behave, therefore when one is observing this, what they see is someone constantly telling people how to behave, which gives the perception, that this person seems to think, that they're infallible, thus the initial sensation of annoyance, thus the perception, that they have a holier than thou mentality. Everything just fits. 

Looking at Ti, my mindset starts to shift a little. I'm trying to eliminate, what doesn't fit. I look at my interactions with Ti doms, and note a constant discussion/debate on what amounts to semantics. I ask myself, "Well, what's going on here?", and attempt to "look through/beyond" this initial observation, to the root of the problem. My only logical conclusion, with the information and sense of things, that I currently have, is Ti must, by nature, assign very specific definitions to things and categorize them all "just so", whereas I will use words, sentences, trains of thought, what have you, interchangeably. This is where my mindset shifts, since I'm considering my own type, and a different drive kicks in, and I look to deduce and throw things out, and to nail things down myself. "I can't grasp the full picture of Ti, but based on what I have so far, it isn't me." I keep on that way... "Based on my perceptions of Fe and the full picture, it isn't me. Throw it out. Wait...has anyone called me holier than thou? Nope, never. People get mad at you for not correcting their behaviors, for forgetting their middle names and birthdays, for making them cry, etc. Alright, yeah, throw it out. Well, if Ni is this look through, above, and beyond mentality, and it's clearly dominant in you, Te is only logical. You have to be an INTJ. Unless you have Ni completely wrong..." If I do have Ni right, though, it would seem that Te was logical, because it's like this secondary engagement to stop trying to answer "What's really going on?" from inside me, to answering it from measurable fact and data, outside of me. 

Looking at type theory from the Ti perspective, seems to me, like you instantly grasp the whole system, which could be said of any system to capture your fancy. The picture is clearly there. You can dismantle it, put it back together in countless different ways, and improve upon it, this way, but you still see it. For me, the picture is fuzzy and vague, and always shifting, coming together bit by bit, through these conflicting drives in me. Ti has this very definitive and organized sense of internal mental structure, whereas I want freedom in my internal mental structure. However, I'm left wanting this external structure, and the Ti user is left wanting external freedom, to play with and manipulate logical application. I want to nail my thoughts down, you guys want to free yours up. There's this sense of anchoring through my secondary function, and this sense of freedom, through yours. 

Much like on standardized testing, it takes me far longer to arrive at things, but my understanding is usually dead on and thorough, because I've been over it so many times in my head. However, that isn't always the case. If I have Ni wrong, I'm completely wrong on my type, and all the thoroughness in the world, is for naught. Much like, if I were doing a set of math problems, took thirty minutes to nail down a formula, and arrived at the wrong formula, the whole set of problems would be wrong. lol Thus, the major flaw in my thought process. When I'm wrong, I have to start completely from scratch. Which, I think, is what drives my need for external validation of my thoughts. I don't want to waste my time being wrong and have to do everything all over again. I have to look outside of myself for patterns, data, facts, or even just consensus, to back my subjective conclusions. If the external data doesn't match, I scratch my perceptions and restart the whole process. I'm a slave to what's objective fact, unless I'm just going to trust in my perceptions, which I have a tendency to do, all too often. When I engage that subjective thought process, everything has equal probability of being true or false, until my outside world tells me the answer.


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

Peter said:


> I like the way you describe things, very detailed. I think we´re pretty much on the same page.
> 
> Just commenting on the self-confidence part. It's a defect indeed when you start to think you´re always right, but I don't think it's a defect when, like you mentioned, Te is working properly. In a balanced person, self-confidence is a virtue. *It get's you to believe in things, go after them and make things happen.*


Agree, maybe my post sounded "too radical". I was speaking about the excessive and not justified self-confidence some Ni users manifest, not as it was a deffect per se. You're right pointing that you need confidence in the result, because if not you don't do anything.



Holunder said:


> I still don't think that Ni sees less connections than Ne (it only discards many again), but as we have no means of comparing them, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


Maybe you don't agree because you think my words could imply Ni is "less efficient" or useful than Ne. Of course, I'm not saying this. I insist that both functions are capable of achieving equally complex ideas/conclusions, but the way they do this task is different. I will develop a bit more the rectangle analogy. 

Ni: vertical rectangle; deeper but narrower.
Ne: horizontal rectangle: broader but less deeper.

Suppose both of them have the same area. Imagine that achieving a conclusion is covering a square area of L², with L as the biggest side of the rectangles. Ne covers the area advancing from top to the bottom, whereas Ni does the same from left to right. Remember also that I'm not saying the functions are lines (one chain); they've some surface: more than one chain for Ni (but less than Ne) and more than one step for Ne (but less than Ni).

This behavior is typical for the dichotomy introverted function Vs extroverted function. It's not a "problem" of Ni, neither it's a problem. Each function has its advantages and disadvantages. I really admire how Ni users can focus in one task without being distracted by surrounding world (or thoughts). But I also like my "imagination" as you mentioned speaking about your sibling, because sometimes I notice things that Ni users haven't considered yet (because they usually focus only in what they inmediately need).

You could analyze other pairs of introverted/extroverted function in order to see that this is a general thing, which Jung obviously noticed and pointed. But as you say, maybe the best is agreeing to disagree. Although as an introvert I listen more than speak, when I do my nature makes me explaining "the whole idea" I have, because if not i don't feel satisfied :happy:



Holunder said:


> I will try to give an example to illustrate how Ni and Ne appear to work to me.
> Let's say we have a situation A. Ne connects A to B, C, D, E and F and reports them back. Ni also connects A to B, C, D, E and F, then connects B to B* and E to E*, but rejects C, D and F because it judges them to be irrelevant to the situation, and reports back only B* and E*. Only what is reported back becomes conscious.
> 
> That you only see few chains with Ni doesn't mean that Ni hasn't evaluated many more. They just don't become conscious.


I don't reject this idea. I don't say Ni does not make/eval interlinks. But Ni rejects them more than Ne. What Ni thinks it's irrelevant, Ne thinks that maybe not. Ne is more "chaotic" than Ni if you want (but these interlinks are logically filtered by Ti, of course). 
Disadvantages of Ne: for an inmediate conclusion, Ni should work faster. 
Advantages of Ne: Ni could ignore something it thinks it's irrelevant but in fact not, it could have big implications, although maybe not inmediately (for the concrete task).
Ni thinks some of the interlinks are irrelevant, but it's only the "Ni subjective opinion". Ne thinks more of them are relevant, but this is only the "Ne subjective opinion". Sometimes Ne will be losing time; sometimes Ni will ingnoring relevant things. 

But you can't say Ni evals the same amount of chains *per step* than Ne because it doesn't. It's the nature of i functions, with its advantages and disadvantages. More steps, less chains. I insist in the words "per step". When the task is completed, again with the rectangle example, the same area could be covered. Jung made its model using observations and sistematizing the conclusions. The rule of i/e is general. *You can't objectively say "Ni considers unconsciously all chains but only a few emerges consciously"*, because *if the process is unconscious, how do you know what it does?*. 

Ni is not a "superfunction", neither Ne of course. They act only as "preferences" in the thinking process, preference for more steps at time (Ni) or more possibilities at time (Ne). You can observe IRL strong Ne users vs strong Ni users and make your own conclusion about what happens. If Ne users usually makes broader considerations then we can assume that Ne makes broader considerations. If Ni users usually make deeper considerations (long time scale, more steps or similar descriptions), then we can assume Ni makes deeper considerations. 



Holunder said:


> You're confusing self-confidence with stubbornness. Self-confidence actually makes you more able to accept criticism and question your own opinion, because you are sure of your own worth and don't feel that threatened by the possibility of being wrong.


In fact not. Sometimes these two concepts overlap, and they have matices that makes some people see something as stubborness and others as an excess of self-confidence, and vice-versa. But IMHO, stubboness is an attitude whereas self-confidence is a feeling. You can be seen as a stubborn person whereas not having excessive self-confidence. A stubborn person (which is sometimes a virtue and sometimes a deffect) could insist in a point despite being wrong, but usually will do this not thinking he's right "by default" or because "he must be right, other people wrong", only because with his/her arguments in mind, he thinks he's right.

Self-confidence is confidence in the self, so it's a feeling, not at attitude. Also, sometimes a virtue (when moderated) and sometimes a deffect (when excessive). A person who usually thinks he's the best, or he's always right, or he always have success, I see this as an excess of self-confidence, not stubborness.

I say this with my personal example in mind, because a lot of third people thinks INTP's are arrogant or have an excess of self-confidence, but in fact we are only sometimes stubborn. We value objective truth above any other thing, what is incompatible with arrogance or an excess of self-confidence. We're aware about our virtues, but also about our limitations.


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

MensSuperMateriam said:


> I don't reject this idea. I don't say Ni does not make/eval interlinks. But Ni rejects them more than Ne. What Ni thinks it's irrelevant, Ne thinks that maybe not. Ne is more "chaotic" than Ni if you want (but these interlinks are logically filtered by Ti, of course).
> Disadvantages of Ne: for an inmediate conclusion, Ni should work faster.
> Advantages of Ne: Ni could ignore something it thinks it's irrelevant but in fact not, it could have big implications, although maybe not inmediately (for the concrete task).
> Ni thinks some of the interlinks are irrelevant, but it's only the "Ni subjective opinion". Ne thinks more of them are relevant, but this is only the "Ne subjective opinion". Sometimes Ne will be losing time; sometimes Ni will ingnoring relevant things.


This makes me think we are actually talking about the same thing, only in different words.




> *You can't objectively say "Ni considers unconsciously all chains but only a few emerges consciously"*, because *if the process is unconscious, how do you know what it does?*.


Oh, that's easy. I just ask myself "How does my thought process work?" and Ni comes up with an answer. Surely my unconscious should know how my unconscious works. Also, the line between conscious and unconscious is a bit blurred with Ni, as you can consciously reference unconscious content.

Yes, Ni is that awesome. :tongue:




> In fact not. Sometimes these two concepts overlap, and they have matices that makes some people see something as stubborness and others as an excess of self-confidence, and vice-versa. But IMHO, stubboness is an attitude whereas self-confidence is a feeling. You can be seen as a stubborn person whereas not having excessive self-confidence. A stubborn person (which is sometimes a virtue and sometimes a deffect) could insist in a point despite being wrong, but usually will do this not thinking he's right "by default" or because "he must be right, other people wrong", only because with his/her arguments in mind, he thinks he's right.
> 
> Self-confidence is confidence in the self, so it's a feeling, not at attitude. Also, sometimes a virtue (when moderated) and sometimes a deffect (when excessive). A person who usually thinks he's the best, or he's always right, or he always have success, I see this as an excess of self-confidence, not stubborness.
> 
> I say this with my personal example in mind, because a lot of third people thinks INTP's are arrogant or have an excess of self-confidence, but in fact we are only sometimes stubborn. We value objective truth above any other thing, what is incompatible with arrogance or an excess of self-confidence. We're aware about our virtues, but also about our limitations.


I admit defeat to the superior definition skills of Ti.


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

Holunder said:


> Oh, that's easy. I just ask myself "How does my thought process work?" and Ni comes up with an answer. Surely my unconscious should know how my unconscious works. Also, the line between conscious and unconscious is a bit blurred with Ni, as you can consciously reference unconscious content.


This is impossible. Ni (neither other function) can't come to an "answer" for something you can't observe in any way. All you can do are suppositions. Ni could think they're true, but Ni (or another) opinion is irrelevant (in the meaning that oneself can't make truth). If they're true then they are true, it they're not, they aren't. How can your conscious know your unconscious? Don't you see this is impossible? It's like if you can see invisible things. The word "unconscious" represents the part of the thinking process we can't observe or measure. You cannot know how this part is while no measurement is possible. Maybe in future, with enough knowledge of brain, enough developed fNMR of PET could "measure" properly this thing.

Reality does not depend on our opinion about it. Gravity is not what Newton said; Gravity is not what Einstein said, Gravity is Gravity and we're trying to approximate to it with models which are more accurate each time. 



Holunder said:


> Also, the line between conscious and unconscious is a bit blurred with Ni, as you can consciously reference unconscious content.


Could you prove this "blurred effect" without falling in a tautology? Everyone can reference consciously unconscious content, having Ni or not. Imagining something (in the meaning of estimating how something is) does not make imagined being true. Sun does not orbit Earth despite it seems to do.

At the point you start using only Ni for making decisions/evalutions (forgetting your Te), you lose all objectivity. Without considering the need of proofs, I can prove all I want. I can always create a rule that connects A with B. You can think in a lot of religious examples, whose arguments are circular (tautologies).

You cannot (or should not) affirm Ni does things you can't prove in any way. All you can do is associating each function with observed behavior, not with unobserved processes.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

MensSuperMateriam said:


> > > You can't objectively say "Ni considers unconsciously all chains but only a few emerges consciously", because if the process is unconscious, how do you know what it does?.
> >
> >
> > Oh, that's easy. I just ask myself "How does my thought process work?" and Ni comes up with an answer. Surely my unconscious should know how my unconscious works. Also, the line between conscious and unconscious is a bit blurred with Ni, as you can consciously reference unconscious content.
> ...


I have to say I agree with Holunder. When Ni is at work you´re kind of aware of it sometimes. It's most noticable when a problem is thrown in your face and you need to take a quick decision. What happens is a kind of notion of your mind going through all the possibilities and it's kind of like a rollercoaster ride where the mind is going up and down, left and right, every move is a decision.

It goes so fast that there's no time for words or thoughts about it, it's just a light awareness of what is going on in your head, which you can call blurred because there's no time to really think conciously (Te) about it.

When the final conclusion had been reached Te and Fi give their aproval, mostly Fi I think. In cases like this you just accept what ever Ni comes up with as logically correct but Fi has to say if it's right or wrong. (At least for me that is very important.)

When not being able to come up with some quick decision (Ni can't figure it out that fast and needs help from Te) I usually block the decision or come up with something that will give me time to think about it more.


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

MensSuperMateriam said:


> This is impossible. Ni (neither other function) can't come to an "answer" for something you can't observe in any way.





> You cannot (or should not) affirm Ni does things you can't prove in any way. All you can do is associating each function with observed behavior, not with unobserved processes.


Why shouldn't I be able to observe in some way what is going on in my mind? It isn't called _introverted perceiving_ for nothing. And I am not trying to prove that perception. How could you prove to me that you are perceiving a tree outside your window (assuming there is one)? You couldn't, because you cannot prove perceptions.




> All you can do are suppositions.


That is true for everyone and everything. All our reasoning is eventually based in our perception of the world, which may be faulty. Who is to say that one method of perception is worth less than an other? Especially when others (in this case, Peter) affirm this perception?




> How can your conscious know your unconscious? Don't you see this is impossible?


Of course you cannot know _all_ your unconscious - it's much too big - but little bits of it might be communicated to the conscious, for example in the way of dreams.




> At the point you start using only Ni for making decisions/evalutions (forgetting your Te), you lose all objectivity.


You forget that Ni is merely exploiting a system that has been build using rational functions. Also, who said I didn't check my perceptions for reasonableness?


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Agreeing with tthe other Ni-users.

Try an analogy: see it as looking at a painting. With Ni I do _see_ each individual brushstroke, they are not removed from my consideration, but I have no conscious awareness of seeing them at that level of detail, nor do I have much interest in doing so. But I _do _know I see them since I see the large patterns that create the picture, and these patterns are entirely dependent upon the brushstrokes, created by them, and do not exist without them. Thus if I see the pattern, I see what makes it up. My awareness is not limited in_ scope _- it is in_ detail_, however, for I cannot retain any memory of most of the brushstrokes as they were processed and perceived at an unconscious level, They _were_ processed though, or I would be perceiving no pattern. The pattern is evidence of the subconscious awareness - it is perceived, not created, and it has to come from somewhere so I know that the awareness exists on some level. Ne seems to stand closer to the painting.


----------



## UncertainSomething (Feb 17, 2010)

To me Ni is like a giant three dimensional lattice thats connects at all points, when new information is gathered the lattice expands and makes the new connections, sometimes connections at the points change as the lattice expands. I feel mostly unaware of this lattice until the thought process is engaged fully, most of the time it just makes connections that to me feel like they come out of nowhere and seem random but are usually accurate or result in a "wow". I feel there are some connections, maybe some loose ones, that are like dark alleyways or mazes that hold something hidden yet to be revealed. Something like that :laughing:


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

Peter said:


> I have to say I agree with Holunder. When Ni is at work you´re kind of aware of it sometimes. It's most noticable when a problem is thrown in your face and you need to take a quick decision. What happens is a kind of notion of your mind going through all the possibilities and it's kind of like a rollercoaster ride where the mind is going up and down, left and right, every move is a decision.
> 
> It goes so fast that there's no time for words or thoughts about it, it's just a light awareness of what is going on in your head, which you can call blurred because there's no time to really think conciously (Te) about it.
> 
> ...


I agree with these words and the way they're expressed.



Holunder said:


> Why shouldn't I be able to observe in some way what is going on in my mind? It isn't called _introverted perceiving_ for nothing. And I am not trying to prove that perception. How could you prove to me that you are perceiving a tree outside your window (assuming there is one)? You couldn't, because you cannot prove perceptions.


I'm not sure if you really didn't understand what I tried to say or you really do not agree. But anyway it seems to me this conversation has become a bit repetitive, so if no agreement is possible inisitence is futile. I will do my last aseveration about this issue. 

I agree whith your "ultimate relativization" about everything, but that was not the point and in my opinion, unnecesary to this debate. Of course, reality exists outside, and we cannot in any way know the true reality, only portions of it which we model for making conclusions.

First, your definition of *introverted perception* is not correct. Introverted perception does not imply "perception of what happens in your mind" as if extroverted perception could not do this, or do this worse than introverted. Introverted perception, as jungian concept, means perception based in the self ("oriented by the self"), not oriented to the self, what is what you're saying. Bot of them, introverted and extroverted perception could analize both outside and inside world.

Based in the self means "the rules that color your perception are originated in yourself" whereas based in the non self (extroverted) means "the rules that color your perception are originated in the outside world" more or less what happens with Ti Vs Te. Ti uses "internal rules for evaluations" but does not imply that Ti only judges internal focused thoughts or Te cannot jugde them.

You could perfectly analize what happens in your mind, as everyone else. What I was saying is that you could not objectively analyze the part of yourself for which no true data/observations are available, ie, the subconscious. You could only analize properly the conscious, the part that generates effects and whose behavior is observable. If you have a covered part in a picture you can suppose what is behind the covered part, but this is only a supposition. You have no real data about it, this is even worse that the limited modelization about realitity that every perception does. You perceive nothing about the covered part. Well, you can say "I can make conclusions about what is covered observing the surroundings". Of course, but as *you have no way of proving this because you have no data, the supposition never will be more than a supposition*. It's not real knowledge, only imagination.

There is no evidence about possible relation between concrete types or cognitive processes and dreams, this kind of use is a former and void freudian idea. Only when inquiring about bad mental states it makes sense because their strong relation with memory. Even their functionality is not completely clear. Modern neurosciences are pointing that they could help to order, clear, the information stored in memory, but they are not "the subconscious thinking".

And, why this "speech"?. Simple. @Peter started posting in this thread with an "inflated" conception about what Ni is and can do. I tried to offer him a bit of objectiveness about this, and it seems to me I achieved my goal. Now, you refuse considering the limits I'm trying to point in the properties you assign to Ni. I have nothing against this function. As I said in a former post, I admire some of its properties. But some Ni users seem to think this function can do "everything" as* if it were some kind of magical power*. I'm saying only that Ni cannot do impossible things, like perceiving what cannot be perceived as is (but of course, it can suppose, imagine). Some of you are too reticent for considering any limitation in Ni, as happened previously in the posts about Ni Vs Ne and interlinks. Maybe the limitations I point about Ni could not be correct (but as I have learnt about cognitive functions, I think I'm right), but obviously it's unrealistic thinking Ni has no limitations. Every function has its advantages and its advantages when compared with others, and its natural limitations. Ni is not an exception. This is all I'm trying to say.

I stay here.


----------



## Holunder (May 11, 2010)

> I'm not sure if you really didn't understand what I tried to say or you really do not agree.


I understood what you said, and even partly agree with you. But I have tried to give an impression what Ni is _to me_, and if that doesn't correspond with the books, so be it. They probably weren't written by Ni dominants anyway. I don't think I presented Ni as having "magical powers" - every function is awesome in it's own way, and I believe it just sounds so strange to you because you have no access to Ni yourself. But be that as it may, we don't have to agree on this.




MensSuperMateriam said:


> But anyway it seems to me this conversation has become a bit repetitive, so if no agreement is possible inisitence is futile. I will do my last aseveration about this issue.


As you wish. Farewell!


----------

