# Expand my understanding of Ni



## kingdavidANC (Aug 2, 2011)

It is to my understanding that Ni could best be compared to deductive reasoning, whereas Ne could be best compared to inductive reasoning. Ni takes known information and makes intuitive leaps to come to a single conclusion; whereas Ne draws many possibilities out of known information, leaving the user to play duck duck goose with the potential conclusions. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

Is there any selective process to Ni? It's made out to sound that through some magical process, a single conclusion is come to.

Given that what I just said is true, is it safe to conclude that Ni is simply superior in practice? Why would one want many potential conclusions instead of one correct conclusion?


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

I think that you're correct in saying that Ni and Ne could be analogous to deductive and inductive thinking. It's definitely been my experience with Ni and Ne users. I'm not certain how to describe the selective process. For myself, I'm never really aware of where my conclusions come from. If I'm asked to justify them, it's an incredibly conscious process. I first have to ask myself "how _did_ you come to this conclusion?" because I usually don't know and then I have to figure it out almost in reverse, or after the fact at the very least. 

If we want to start getting theoretical, I suppose that Ni and Se would work somewhat in tandem. When there's something that really resonates with me, it's because it speaks to the dynamics and the details that I've observed in my everyday life. For example, when I first formally learned about heteronormativity, it was like I was overwhelmed by every single instance in my life when people had assumed that I was heterosexual and acted accordingly or when I'd done the same thing to other people. Although it could be argued that this is something that is fairly apparent (especially if you don't happen to be heterosexual :tongue, it was a really profound moment for me because it was like a coming together or a surge of a multitude of different things that I'd experienced at once. It was a very overwhelming, almost exhilerating, feeling. And it was a bit like a eureka moment, not because I'd come up with the idea myself, but because it was because I'd realised something really fundamental and incontrovertible. And that's why I'm so comically intellectual. It's like I get off on new ideas (because God knows I can't come up with them myself) and new perspectives. It's why, in spite of almost everything else about them, I find open-minded people so deeply, deeply attractive.

As for Ni being superior in practice? My ego would be flattered to think so because I do like to entertain the notion that I'm _obviously_ the most intelligent person in the world, but I say bah. You've never seen me try and brainstorm. I've noticed this in particular with NPs, but y'all seem to take Ne for granted. It's incredibly annoying because it's almost like it just smears my own inadequacies in this regard in my face :mellow: I've tried to explain this to my ENFP roommate so many times, but she just doesn't get why it's such an inherently valuable skill to have and I am clearly just not that great at articulating it.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Intuition gives an expectation of an outcome.

Ni synthesizes patterns together to find the overall pattern in order to make a strong prediction of as few outcomes as possible. It is subjective, and hence, it produces a subjective interpretation of the future. That is to say, it projects the _subject_ into the future. Because it is subjective and turned inward, it sees what the self wants to see. It provides you with a vision of the outcome you want, and in doing so provides you with the chain of events that would bring it into being - or immediately tells you if it seems impossible. The power of this insight is limited by judgment. Because it is not possible to rationalize the direct perception of infinity, judgment limits infinite perception down to something finite. This is in fact what distinguishes intuition from sensation - it is essentially a distinction between time and space. Because judgment produces the dualism of past and future, and the monism of the infinite now, and the pluralism of past, present future. Intuition perceives reality without temporal limitations or any limits at all. Limits come from judgment. Perception has no boundary. It is irrational.

Ne does the opposite, seeing objective reality for what it is, seeing the future for what it actually is - infinite. It cannot find or project the self/subject into what it perceives because it perceives _forever_. Instead, it relies on some form of judgment to limit perception down to something finite and rational. In fact, the paired judgment _is_ the limit to Ne. Ne would otherwise _see infinity_. It is that very gut sense coming from Ne users that _there is so much more to see_ that makes it so hard for them to commit, or to stay committed, or to feel strongly compelled to one side or another about anything in the ultimate run of things. Even when they do commit, it is arbitrary and only based on circumstance. They see that there are so many more possibilities, even if they are not directly aware of them due to their judgment limiting their perception.


----------



## kingdavidANC (Aug 2, 2011)

knittigan said:


> As for Ni being superior in practice? My ego would be flattered to think so because I do like to entertain the notion that I'm _obviously_ the most intelligent person in the world, but I say bah. You've never seen me try and brainstorm. I've noticed this in particular with NPs, but y'all seem to take Ne for granted. It's incredibly annoying because it's almost like it just smears my own inadequacies in this regard in my face :mellow: I've tried to explain this to my ENFP roommate so many times, but she just doesn't get why it's such an inherently valuable skill to have and I am clearly just not that great at articulating it.


I suppose you could see it as me "taking it for granted," but it seems far less useful than Ni to me. I'm not very good at brainstorming at all. I can't create something out of nothing. My usage of Ne is limited to taking known information, and intuiting potential outcomes in somewhat of a Holmesian manner--maybe that's just me, though. For me, Ne often presents itself cynically in this manner, as I'm always analyzing the people's ulterior motives and the underlying force behind marketing techniques.

Ni, on the other hand, seems like Babe Ruth calling a home run. *Points outside the park* "This is where the ball is going, and I'll be damned if it doesn't." Ni then intuits the steps towards getting there, allowing you to make it happen. To me, it seems much more realistic and practical than Ne--which to me feels like living in a dream world.

I think the reason INTPs undervalue Ne is because we are like "the sensors of the intuitives." While we think intuitively, we are drawn towards realism and pragmatism. Thus, we don't have any desire for creating our own reality.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

kingdavidANC said:


> I suppose you could see it as me "taking it for granted," but it seems far less useful than Ni to me. I'm not very good at brainstorming at all. I can't create something out of nothing. My usage of Ne is limited to taking known information, and intuiting potential outcomes in somewhat of a Holmesian manner--maybe that's just me, though. For me, Ne often presents itself cynically in this manner, as I'm always analyzing the people's ulterior motives and the underlying force behind marketing techniques.
> 
> Ni, on the other hand, seems like Babe Ruth calling a home run. *Points outside the park* "This is where the ball is going, and I'll be damned if it doesn't." Ni then intuits the steps towards getting there, allowing you to make it happen. To me, it seems much more realistic and practical than Ne--which to me feels like living in a dream world.
> 
> I think the reason INTPs undervalue Ne is because we are like "the sensors of the intuitives." While we think intuitively, we are drawn towards realism and pragmatism. Thus, we don't have any desire for creating our own reality.


Why don't you just use both at different times? Your shadow type is ENTJ. Maybe you're an ambivert.

Reality points at duality. Within duality there is plurality, and the plurality points at reality.


----------



## kingdavidANC (Aug 2, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> Why don't you just use both at different times? Your shadow type is ENTJ. Maybe you're an ambivert.
> 
> Reality points at duality. Within duality there is plurality, and the plurality points at reality.


What would ambiversion have to do with it? Wouldn't that just mean that I use my introverted and extraverted functions more equally?

I know that I have very developed J/shadow functions, however. I can't relate to the lack of confidence, ineptitude for leadership, and general laziness amongst INTPs. I'm very confident, like being in control, and I tend to procrastinate, however I'm always filled with gumption.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

kingdavidANC said:


> What would ambiversion have to do with it? Wouldn't that just mean that I use my introverted and extraverted functions more equally?
> 
> I know that I have very developed J/shadow functions, however. I can't relate to the lack of confidence, ineptitude for leadership, and general laziness amongst INTPs. I'm very confident, like being in control, and I tend to procrastinate, however I'm always filled with gumption.


You see, those values create your perception of them. Because you choose to rationalize it that way. As an INTP, that is your gift. You can choose how to rationalize your perceptions. Your perception is objective, and even though it is extroverted, your preference is for intuition over sensation.


----------



## kingdavidANC (Aug 2, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> You see, those values create your perception of them. Because you choose to rationalize it that way. As an INTP, that is your gift. You can choose how to rationalize your perceptions. Your perception is objective, and even though it is extroverted, your preference is for intuition over sensation.


I'm confused. All of these pronouns are hurting my brain.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by the first sentence, and what "it" is that I'm rationalizing?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

kingdavidANC said:


> I'm confused. All of these pronouns are hurting my brain.
> 
> Could you elaborate on what you mean by the first sentence


Sure, I'm glad to help. This thread is meant to share a profound insight, and every response it has generated so far is actually adding to the value of this thread tremendously. I value every opportunity to address any perceived inconsistency in what I am saying.



> You see, those values create your perception of them.


There are two value systems within Jungian cognition, introversion and extroversion. Perception and judgment are the inverse of each other, one is rational (judgment) the other is irrational (perception). They reflect the dichotomy of introversion and extroversion. Judgment is extroverted _even when it is introverted_ in the sense that it is always _rational and symmetric._ That is to say, _introversion is like extroversion_ it is _essentially_ the same.



> Because you choose to rationalize it that way.


If you are an INTP (or an ENTJ, or an ESTJ, or an ISTP), then thinking is your dominant function. Therefore, your cognitive bias is towards judgment and rationalization over your irrational perceptions. Your perception is auxiliary and _compensating _for your dominant bias for limitless judgment, which is paradoxical and like saying 'the infinite finite', hence your perception _balances_ your dominant judgment with 'the finite infinite', either introverted or extroverted.



kingdavidANC said:


> ...and what "it" is that I'm rationalizing?


Your dominant function is rational, and it is subjective, so you are trying to rationalize reason. You recognize that what I am saying is founded in intuition which is an irrational function - which makes what I am saying essentially irrational. You are making a primary identification with reason, and simply reacting to the essential nature of my post. This is how Jungian cognition works. Synthesizing the concept of ambiversion from introversion and extroversion, it is possible to synthesize the Jungian Paradigm into a seem-less integrated experience of reality as three things, monism, dualism, and pluralism, which is simultaneously objective and subjective - and is already the way we perceive things to begin with. The only difference is doing so with _awareness_ or not.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

kingdavidANC said:


> It is to my understanding that Ni could best be compared to deductive reasoning, whereas Ne could be best compared to inductive reasoning. Ni takes known information and makes intuitive leaps to come to a single conclusion; whereas Ne draws many possibilities out of known information, leaving the user to play duck duck goose with the potential conclusions. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.
> 
> Is there any selective process to Ni? It's made out to sound that through some magical process, a single conclusion is come to.
> 
> Given that what I just said is true, is it safe to conclude that Ni is simply superior in practice? Why would one want many potential conclusions instead of one correct conclusion?


Because the Ni conclusion can be wrong, and often is (or at least incomplete). Good luck getting an Ni dom to see that though.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

knittigan said:


> As for Ni being superior in practice? My ego would be flattered to think so because I do like to entertain the notion that I'm _obviously_ the most intelligent person in the world, but I say bah. You've never seen me try and brainstorm. I've noticed this in particular with NPs, but y'all seem to take Ne for granted. It's incredibly annoying because it's almost like it just smears my own inadequacies in this regard in my face :mellow: I've tried to explain this to my ENFP roommate so many times, but she just doesn't get why it's such an inherently valuable skill to have and I am clearly just not that great at articulating it.


I'm not sure what you mean, you shoot your white beam of Ni into an Ne prism and are surprised at all the colors that shoot back at you? 

On the other hand, encountering an Ni user often makes me feel like I've had the rug pulled right out from under me and I'm now standing above a pool of water and not dressed for swimming.. IE They'll reframe the debate so radically that nothing I have to say is relevant any longer


----------



## kingdavidANC (Aug 2, 2011)

@Abraxas

So to clarify, what you are saying is that "ambiversion" can apply to function attitudes directly, as opposed to merely an equal preference for one's introverted and extraverted functions?

My understanding of ambiversion was that, in the case of an INTJ for all intents and descriptive purposes, one would not have any preference for Ni over Se and Te over Fi. I.e., one has no preference for thinking introvertedly or extravertedly.

Ni = Se
Te = Fi

According to what you're saying, however, and assuming that I correctly understand it, an INTJ, again for all intents and descriptive purposes, would not have any preference for Ni over Ne or Te over Ti, etc.

Correct?

(Run on sentence/shitty grammar central)


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

kingdavidANC said:


> @Abraxas
> 
> So to clarify, what you are saying is that "ambiversion" can apply to function attitudes directly, as opposed to merely an equal preference for one's introverted and extraverted functions?
> 
> ...


Precisely. Ambiversion is actually based on a great deal of empirical study. More common tests like the 5 Factor Model use introversion and extroversion as more of a sliding scale, an axis instead of A/B, with ambiversion in the middle for people who score under 70% I or E. I thought it made sense to presume there might theoretically be a third set of cognitive functions, with an ambiverted orientation. Or, if you really wish to stick to the traditional Jung model - we can just say that the person tends to switch back and forth under different conditions, but that they themselves do not really make a primary identification with introversion or extroversion in themselves, it simply manifests one way or the other slightly more or less overall. Hence, these people would probably be unsure of their type coming into MBTI, and waste a lot of time trying to figure out their cognitive functions, when instead there could simply be a third option.

Sticking to Briggs, NT's would go something like this, with the 8-function pairings:

NT's

INTJ - (Ni/Te-Fi/Se)-(Ne/Ti-Fe/Si)
ENTP - (Ne/Ti-Fe/Si)-(Ni/Te-Fi/Se)
ANTP - (N/T/F/S)-[(Ni/Te-Fi/Se)-(Ne/Ti-Fe/Si)]

INTP - (Ti/Ne-Si/Fe)-(Te/Ni-Se/Fi)
ENTJ - (Te/Ni-Se/Fi)-(Ti/Ne-Si/Fe)
ANTJ - (T/N/S/F)-[(Ti/Ne-Si/Fe)-(Te/Ni-Se/Fi)]

The benefit and simultaneous disadvantage of the ambiverts, is that they can access both the extroverted and the introverted forms of their dominant function easily - however, because of this they have a hard time sustaining the usage of one or the other for very long. For them it is actually very difficult to see things in the black and white, true or false terms that most introverts and extroverts view the universe in. To them, paradoxes and dichotomies are their normative state of cognitive perception or thinking. The universe is _absolutely symmetrical_ to the natural ambivert.

Again, this is a good thing and a bad thing. It makes it extremely difficult to identify with people who see things in either/or terms and simply refuse to accept the synthesis of their side of the argument into the other opposing side of the argument. Because ambiverts see things harmoniously by nature, making these distinctions for the sake of company, or for the sake of reason, is necessarily difficult.


----------

