# I need to understand Ni



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

Ni users, describe to me what using Ni is like.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

I percieve it as a barely conscious connection process. A bit like your mind is laying some puzzles over time, and it only presents you the finished ones.

It's like you didn't get it before, but the last piece just fell in place, and you understand it all. It's binary. From no understanding to full understanding. Suddenly.

It feels very zoomed out. No details, just concepts and how they are connected.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

NiDBiLD said:


> I percieve it as a barely conscious connection process. A bit like your mind is laying some puzzles over time, and it only presents you the finished ones.
> 
> It's like you didn't get it before, but the last piece just fell in place, and you understand it all. It's binary. From no understanding to full understanding. Suddenly.
> 
> It feels very zoomed out. No details, just concepts and how they are connected.


Can you give me an example of like a movie character using it. For example, Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes uses Ne a lot when he goes from one thing to another and obsesses on it for hours and looses all track of time. I do that a lot.

Please give me an example of a movie character using Ni. Maybe I can look up the scene on youtube and get a better feel for what Ni is like. To me, it kind of sounds like the psychological term "insight".


----------



## Harley (Jul 5, 2009)

In my own words, I would say Ni is a lens of perspective. 
It's about looking inwards and reflecting on how something is the product of of someone(s) past actions, looking at what it is today, or contemplate on what it might mean in the future. For example an Ne might look at a measuring cup and think "hmm, sure this can used to measure ingredients, but if I want to get creative I could use it as a hat, a holder to hold my pens, a vase to hold my flowers etc." Ne wants to find ways to use a measuring cup outside the conventional way of measuring food ingredients.

Ni on the other hand, would look at that same measuring cup and think, "this measuring cup is used to measure food ingredients, which in the past was the domain of woman since they were expected to carry on domestic duties. Yet today both men and women are expected to take share in such duties, so now this measuring cup is not a symbol of oppression but rather equality. Also notice how this measuring cup is only using the metric system even though I am not American. The measuring cup can also be a symbol of American capitalism and dominance, since it uses a measuring system no other country is using". Ni is not interested in manipulating the cup in any way like Ne, but rather sees how the cup is the product and symbol of different thoughts and movements (feminism, capitalism etc.) 

As for examples, I think a really good example of Ni would be the domino scene for V for Vendetta





If you look at the first comment in the link for that video, someone writes that the dominoes represent the people that were killed during the regime, and the last domino represents V himself. The dominoes aren't just dominoes they are symbols that represent the oppression of the government. And notice how the dominoes are arrange so that they create a V? This is meant to represent that all those people in died during the regime, their deaths, and their pain, is what made V. He is a man who is made up of the pain and suffering of others. 

For Ne, Tyler Durden from Fight Club is a typical Ne man (ENTP) and his philosophy is basically built on the rambling of someone who uses Ne overdrive





(There was a better vid of Tyler using Ne, but I can't find it) Notice throughout the movie his philosophy is based on the idea of destroying civilization and it's capitalistic nature that it is now in. Tyler sees something (civilization, capitalism, consumerism) and wants to manipulate/change it. Just like Ne wants to use the measuring cup aside from its intended use, Tyler wants to change society into something that is completely incompatible with consumerist culture, go outside the box, and knock down conventional society.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

In other words, Ne want to change things and improve them and make them better. Ni users just analyze the hell out of everything and want to understand different perspectives? Is this right?
Also, why do Ne users tend to get distracted so easily by just about anything, but Ni users tend to stay pretty focused?


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

Ok so Ne is more of a way of viewing different possibilities in order to change them. Ni is views the same possibilities, but just wants to be able to view them from a different perspective, not change them? Is this correct? Also, why do Ne users tend to get distracted so easily, but yet Ni users tend to stay on task and focused throughout the day?


----------



## agokcen (Jan 3, 2010)

Here's what I just told a friend of mine, who was also a bit confused on the matter:



> I always imagine both Ne and Ni as functions that focus, above all, upon trying to break out of the present and focus on the future, but each does so through different methods. Ne seeks to break out of the present by focusing on ideas and possibilities and learning enough about a wide range of things in order to create the future from this knowledge; Ni seeks to break out of the present by fully understanding it and all of the principles behind it, and this deep understanding serves as the key to transcending it somehow.


I find that this is eerily correct in terms of my relations with the foremost INTJ in my life.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

NatetheGreat said:


> Ok so Ne is more of a way of viewing different possibilities in order to change them. Ni is views the same possibilities, but just wants to be able to view them from a different perspective, not change them? Is this correct? Also, why do Ne users tend to get distracted so easily, but yet Ni users tend to stay on task and focused throughout the day?


The way I look at it.. Ne is wide, it will give you alot of possibilities to explore (most not fully formed) It may be hard to choose the correct answer. I don't know if Ne is concerned with changing things per se. It kinda takes a piece of information, and generates a bunch of random pieces of information that may seem only vaguely related. What the user chooses to do with that info is up to them. 
Ni is narrow, sharp, focused. It will zoom in and give you a single answer that is pretty fully formed.


----------



## agokcen (Jan 3, 2010)

NatetheGreat said:


> In other words, Ne want to change things and improve them and make them better. Ni users just analyze the hell out of everything and want to understand different perspectives? Is this right?
> Also, why do Ne users tend to get distracted so easily by just about anything, but Ni users tend to stay pretty focused?





NatetheGreat said:


> Ok so Ne is more of a way of viewing different possibilities in order to change them. Ni is views the same possibilities, but just wants to be able to view them from a different perspective, not change them? Is this correct? Also, why do Ne users tend to get distracted so easily, but yet Ni users tend to stay on task and focused throughout the day?


Speaking of the foremost INTJ in my life, we were just having a discussion last night that relates to this. The most relevant stuff starts about halfway through. (Yes, this is the actual discussion. It was an instant messaging conversation.)


_*INTJ: *
i think it would be very interesting to know what other people think about me (or think in general) but i'm not sure i'd actually like to know
like mindreading would be interesting but would you definitely want that ability--i'm not so sure

*Me: *
I certainly would. It would solve most of life's problems (and create a whole set of new ones, to be sure, but that's beside the point).

*INTJ: *
i think it could be quite disconcerting

*Me: *
As long as no one else could read my mind, I'd be fine.
I'm a bit of a hypocrite, admittedly.
Of course, I'd have to be sure to avoid creepy men and such, because that would just get awkward.........anyway...

*INTJ: *
i think it could also get awkward among people who seem polite and friendly but you find out that they hate your guts
i think that would be worst

*Me: *
But if you had the gift from the get-go, that would never be a problem.
No?

*INTJ: *
hm...depends. give me the power and i'll go meet some people and see

*Me: *
I'd want an ability to turn it off at will, though.
Hear only what I want to hear.

*INTJ: *
but how could you tell when to turn it off, or would it be more of a filter?

*Me: *
It would be nice, perhaps, if it was off by default, but if I wanted to, like, "tune in" to someone's thoughts, I could easily do so.

*INTJ: *
i feel like i could name many people for whom you'd get a whole lot of silence, or maybe static

*Me: *
^ quote of the day
Or perhaps elevator music.

*INTJ: *
i feel like i think much less than many others
in class if the topic is interesting i may pay attention but whenever i'm not in class i really don't think at all

*Me: *
Just...blank?

*INTJ: *
some of the time, yep
it's like automatic yoga or something
i think i try so hard to understand in class that i just don't think at all at other times
like when i play basketball, or go bowling, or play (non-strategy) games
or maybe i'm just talking nonsense and am deluded by my mental incapacitation of being intoxicated by weariness

*Me: *
Interesting.
If that is all true, then I'm kind of jealous.
The whole idea of clearing one's mind has never made sense to me. It's constantly buzzing up there, with thoughts of basically everything ever, most of which don't make much sense and are probably incomplete. If someone could read my mind, it would probably sound something like being in the stadium during a World Cup game.

*INTJ: *
hmm...vevuzelas and foghorns or just excess chatter?

*Me: *
Lots and lots of vuvuzelas.
And chatter.
And maybe some Irish/Scottish announcers (I always get the two accents mixed up). That would be cool.

*INTJ: *
i feel like i'm pretty single-minded in everything i do--i've never been a multitasker or even multithinker

*Me: *
Again, I'm envious.

*INTJ: *
i wouldn't be too envious--i can never find my shoes
or glasses
or phone
or anything a few seconds after i put it down b/c its out of my mind already

*Me: *
Is that really related? All I know is that it's nice having a million thoughts at once in that I can metaphorically pick from the stream of ideas as I please, but it also means that I often am paralyzed with indecision...or am just distracted very, very easily. It'd be nice to be able to focus or clear my mind for a change. Also, being so easily distracted means I, too, tend to forget and lose things.

*INTJ: *
I feel like my mind only holds one idea so if it comes into my mind i feel obligated to share it._


Kind of interesting, I think. I have tons of ideas all of the time, from which I must pick and choose what's useful -- and get distracted by the other ideas floating around. He, on the other hand, is actually a wonderful thinker (he's basically a philosopher, and he can find an explanation for anything), but apparently is very single-minded and focuses all of his energy into learning at certain times, and the rest of the time he's not even conscious of his mind's processing of everything (but it's certainly happening somewhere in there).

Typical Ne vs. Ni?  Most definitely.


----------



## Abuwabu (Nov 25, 2009)

I think my Ni plays a major part in my ability to improvise. It's knowing intuitively that that £2k wind generator that you are trying to sell me for my boat is in fact a little motor, some shaped blades, a couple of wires and a stand. I could pickup the motor by dismantling a discarded treadmill (for example), shape the blades from some pvc pipe and have the whole thing up and running for £150 and a bit of labour. It's seeing something for what it really is.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Sometimes Ni sounds so much cooler :dry:


----------



## Harley (Jul 5, 2009)

unleashthehounds said:


> The way I look at it.. Ne is wide, it will give you alot of possibilities to explore (most not fully formed) It may be hard to choose the correct answer. I don't know if Ne is concerned with changing things per se. It kinda takes a piece of information, and generates a bunch of random pieces of information that may seem only vaguely related. What the user chooses to do with that info is up to them.
> Ni is narrow, sharp, focused. It will zoom in and give you a single answer that is pretty fully formed.


Focus discrepancy between Ni and Ne types also lies in their relation to their dominant or auxiliary function.

For example, dominant Ne types are ENxP's, while types that use Ne auxiliary are INxP's. While their perceiving function is focused outwardly, their judging function (Ti or Fi) is based inwardly. And since introverted functions are subjective and extraverted functions are objective, it is harder for NP's to systematically arrange the information they gather using Ne because their method of organization is arbitrary and constantly being redefined to fit their discoveries. 

Dominant/auxiliary Ni types (NJ's) perceive the world inwardly, but organize their information and judge the world outwardly (using Fe or Te). Because their method of organization is based on tangent information that can clearly defined, NJ types have an easier time organization their inward observation using outward methods and tools, hence why Ni types can be more focused than Ne types. 

Ni relies on the objective and measurable outside world to organize its information found through inwards reflection, while Ne has to depend on the subjective methodologies of the individual to categorize what they extract from the outside world.


----------



## FearsomeCritter (Jan 14, 2010)

If you want a really good example of an Ni user in a movie, Watch a movie called, "Ink."

There's a character called jacob the pathfinder. He can't see, but navigates and plays his role in a girls rescue by hearing a beat inside of himself that only he can hear.

You can watch ink here:

Ink - Hulu


----------



## Antithesis (May 10, 2010)

I definitely feel I use Ni instead of Ne (borderline P/J)


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

Nyx said:


> Sometimes Ni sounds so much cooler :dry:


I use a tad bit of it, but wish I could use more.


----------



## Immemorial (May 16, 2010)

Do I get to feel cool here about being a dominant Ni user?


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

DarkestHour said:


> Do I get to feel cool here about being a dominant Ni user?


Yes you deserve a cookie


----------



## Ray Mabry (Jun 6, 2010)

This is just my observation:

Intuition is complex and seems to have the ability to make connections between many things instantaneously and at times unconsciously. Time is never a factor and neither is outer appearance. It seems to basically find a pattern in whatever it is focusing on.

Ni users basically use this process in an introverted fashion so they focus on underlying trends and symbols. They see something and can't help but apply intuition to the data behind it. The object or event taking place is not as much of a priority as the data and meaning. Ne users extrovert intuition and observe something and can't help but apply intuition to the object or event itself. The data behind it is still a factor but to a lesser extent. They are more focused on comparing the events themselves.

Both processes require a large amount of information before they can work properly so intuition reliant types are always curious and always exploring to further develop this process.

Ne users probably appear more unfocused because the function constantly taking in and comparing actions and events in the external world. They become distracted easier because the distraction itself is valuable information to them. For an Ni user they can focus more because actions and events matter less. The data behind an event is of more important to them. The action, event, or object may only be important if they choose to analyze it.

Ni users come to conclusions only after all the symbols, data, meanings...etc. behind something match up in their minds.
Ne users might take a snippet of information and then start to use that information and compare it to the actions taking place in the even itself. 

Ni can take something to a whole other level by finding a pattern in the information behind it and then following that same pattern into the future. Ni, in situations that benefit from being able to recognize a trend in order to move forward, can be very sharp and can usually give them clearer insight into things that will happen in the future. I'd imagine that this process takes a bit longer than Ne but is more accurate in some situations.

Ne takes a snippet or various snippets of information and compares it to every action that has takes place in a situation and then it creates a model out of that and runs with it. Ne benefits in situations that benefit from being able to see an underlying structure quickly. The process is quicker but would not be ideal in situations that needed to be used to predict. It however might be a bit more flexible seeing as it doesn't necessarily pay attention to trends.

No offense to Unleashthehounds but I disagree with the statement that "Ne is wide" and "Ni is narrow". I think that intuition is by nature "wide" whether it is introverted or extroverted. I think that Ne can be more uncertain in some situations because it doesn't rely heavily on data. Ni plays around with collected data, meanings and symbols and therefore appears sharp and decisive.

I do however agree with Unleashthehounds about Ne not necessarily HAVING to be concerned with changing things. I think that Ne users are more likely to want to change things because they see possibilities in their environment and are drawn to trying to test out their ideas. They don't recognize trends and don't know how their ideas will shape up in the future so they are eager to try to make them a reality. But changing things doesn't define Ne itself. The possibilities exist in the Ne user's head and they can choose to do whatever with them.
Ni users can be motivated to change something as well provided that they recognize an unfavorable trend. They might then become motivated to try to stop the trend or throw it off course.


----------



## lyk0s (Oct 8, 2009)

i think you hit it on the head Ray Mabry. Just because you see all the possibilities for change doesn't always mean you will act on them.


----------



## Ray Mabry (Jun 6, 2010)

Ray Mabry said:


> This is just my observation:
> 
> Intuition is complex and seems to have the ability to make connections between many things instantaneously and at times unconsciously. Time is never a factor and neither is outer appearance. It seems to basically find a pattern in whatever it is focusing on.
> 
> ...


Wow, this was a while ago...(in ENTP time at least lol).

I'll also add that I think that Ni users see the world in a very Seinfeld-esque sort of a way...to simplify some of what I said before and to add in what i've learned since...I see Ni's as always trying to figure out the purpose of something and then taking the object they are focusing on and weighing it against stored data, figuring out how it might be seen from other perspectives, in other locations, in other times, etc...

I'd imagine that some Ni's might have asked themselves questions like "What's the purpose of a table? Wouldn't it just be easier to eat on the floor after all there's more space...in other countries they don't even use tables...etc,etc..." or "Graffiti is a sign that society is in decline over here...in another country it might be considered art or a way of expression."

Once they learn how something has come to be...and they will...they can use it to figure out things in the future.

I feel like Seinfeld is an excellent example of Ni. The show focuses on asking the purpose of things and him noticing trends and how the future might be.


----------



## Introspiritual (Mar 12, 2010)

Ray Mabry said:


> Ni users come to conclusions only after all the symbols, data, meanings...etc. behind something match up in their minds.
> 
> ...
> 
> Ni can take something to a whole other level by finding a pattern in the information behind it and then following that same pattern into the future. Ni, in situations that benefit from being able to recognize a trend in order to move forward, can be very sharp and can usually give them clearer insight into things that will happen in the future. I'd imagine that this process takes a bit longer than Ne but is more accurate in some situations.


I like the description of this, and it matches up with my internal processes. I have to fit the new overarching theory into my existing internal framework of patterns in order to "use it" - but this can take minutes to months depending on the details of the new data/concept/etc.. There are generally both conscious and unconscious aspects to this process as well. Then once that happens, I can make wild and quick leaps in many directions utilizing the updated framework with great accuracy.

(edit : But I still don't get Seinfeld...)


----------



## Ray Mabry (Jun 6, 2010)

Introspiritual said:


> (edit : But I still don't get Seinfeld...)


What i've read about the Ni perspective and thought processes it just seems to me like it matches up perfectly with it and if you google articles or posts that relate Seinfeld both in real life and in character to MBTI they alway link him to an xNTJ. 

His insights just seem like Ni insights and his show is based around not only those but sometimes there are also episodes that deal with trends (another thing linked to Ni).

I probably can't explain it as well but to me it's as clear as day. I think he's a good example of Ni. It's hard to see the complexities of Ni through observing someone with Ni because it is introverted...but the behaviors differ drastically enough from Ne that I can recognize it.

This is a description someone came up with for the character:

"Jerry Seinfeld (Jerry Seinfeld) – INTJ

Extremely perceptive, penetrative and insightful with his dominant Ni about everything that goes on around him and expresses these insights with the calm, logically influential Te. Has inferior Se evident in his fetish relationship with external details i.e. germophobe and neat freak tendencies as well as his reasons for break ups."


----------



## ertertwert (Jun 5, 2010)

Ni is a way of making sense of the world. For example, if A -> B -> C and so on, then Ni will try to make sense of the patterns and just skip ahead instead of doing all the work manually.


----------



## bluestocking girl (Apr 30, 2010)

ertertwert said:


> Ni is a way of making sense of the world. For example, if A -> B -> C and so on, then Ni will try to make sense of the patterns and just skip ahead instead of doing all the work manually.


I think that this is a really good way of looking at Ni. For example, I'm studying history. My approach tends to be to look for trends and patterns. The minutiae of history does not interest me. I'm interested in ideas and how they have shaped history, and how certain types of ideas create certain types of society (e.g., how Greek democracy was shaped by phalanx warfare and the rising hoplite class). 

And yeah, I tend to be more interested in understanding things than in taking action on them. I suspect that this is why it is often said of my type that we often enjoy hypothetical contemplation of romantic entanglements more than the actual reality thereof. We like to play with our ideas. I have my own inner reality that is relatively untouched by outside reality. 

I tend to focus a lot on "point of view." I like to look at things from different angles. Sometimes it can be paralyzing; if I'm making a major life decision, I always know exactly why I'm making the choice I am, the reasons behind it, etc. I cannot fathom taking a different path. On the other hand, I can usually postulate how my parents, friends, etc. will react to my decision. So I often avoid telling people about major things in my life, because while I understand, they may or may not understand. They have different points of view. Their points of view have little or no bearing on my actual decision, but I still don't want to share because they might try to dissuade me, and I don't want to deal with their hassling.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

This seems to be a good link for examining Ni and scenarios. Also contains comparisons w Ne and other....

Introverted Intuition



SAMPLE:
Lenore characterizes Ni as "about the box" as opposed to Extraverted Intuition's "outside the box". 

That is, an Ni orientation leads you to describe the assumptions and rules that a given system of thought or perception is following.
Ni on this perspective is a decidedly left-brain orientation. It doesn't lead you to flow with anything or even participate. It leads you to stop, get "into your head", and even act in ways that go against the spirit of a system, or to think about ways that going with the spirit of rules can lead to unexpected and undesired results.
In contrast to most other definitions, this one has nothing mysterious or particularly "intuitive" about it. Ni on this definition is simply a matter of looking at things from a "meta" perspective, explicitly characterizing how signs are getting mapped to meanings. This simple definition, combined with the idea of ego-orientation, explains the many standard observations about NJs and SPs: the "commenting from an outside perspective" usually seen in INJs, the coldly "objective, impersonal" style usually seen in INTJs, the interest in pointing out that social myths exist to support power structures usually seen in INFJs, the interest in gaming a system or throwing a monkey wrench into it usually seen in SPs, the seeking of the social "cat-bird seat" usually seen in ENJs, the endless levels of meta-discussion found in INJ-filled academia, etc.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Another good one from the "intuition" page of same source:
Introverted Intuition leads you to be both skeptical and idealistic. You doubt any obvious interpretation because you believe that there is much more to the total reality than any one interpretation can capture. You are idealistic because exploring those possibilities beyond what observation suggests shows you other ways that things can be--ways that cannot be found in the world. The myth of Plato's Cave describes the self-understood idealism of Introverted Intuition: one sees a sunlight that no one else sees, which cannot be found by any amount of looking at shadows. But once found, the world of the Sun is vastly preferable to the world inside the cave.
Introverted Intuition makes you somewhat impervious to empirical evidence. Evidence is just more signs: a piece of evidence is a sign that supposedly has a built-in interpretation. What's more, when someone cites an observation as evidence for a conclusion, he is assuming that an observation of that kind invariably--in all contexts--is tied to the conclusion being true. But Intuition says that a sign means different things in different contexts. Suppose that the reporter produces phone records and phone transcripts of his interview with his source. Surely that is evidence of the conversation. Well, c'mon. Surely it's not difficult to think of a context where the exact same phone records and transcripts are observed but there was no bankruptcy.
What distinguishes Introverted Intuition from the other attitudes, then, is its principle that any particular interpretation of a sign leaves out some of the whole reality--and that therefore one must either refrain from making interpretations or interpret in a way that transcends observation. Heuristically, Introverted Intuition leads you to explore a world of conceptual imagination, especially to imagine explanations for signs that go outside the assumptions of any given interpretation.


----------



## Peregrina (Mar 24, 2010)

On the basis of the descriptions I've read from you guys concerning the differences among Ni and Ne, I feel that Ne perhaps thinks more extravertedly on issues and attempts to identify external possibilities to project towards the outer world, whereas Ni users tend to be more analytical and intrapersonal when it comes towards what they observe and try to apply their perceptions towards symbolism in order to somehow gain new information and perspective on their world. While a Ne user will try to create something out of the most seemingly worthless item, for instance, one whom uses Ni would likely find meaning and disntinct beauty within it, developing a sort of empathy towards the object in an odd way.


----------



## DJArendee (Nov 27, 2009)

The Great One said:


> Can you give me an example of like a movie character using it. For example, Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes uses Ne a lot when he goes from one thing to another and obsesses on it for hours and looses all track of time. I do that a lot.
> 
> Please give me an example of a movie character using Ni. Maybe I can look up the scene on youtube and get a better feel for what Ni is like. To me, it kind of sounds like the psychological term "insight".


Have you ever met an INTJ that said something along the lines of, "You're very ____." Its like they truly believe they suddenly know everything about you. And that's all it is. Just like he said, zero understanding to full understanding.

I use it in creativity. When giving people nicknames I combine names. I combine rachael with donnovan to get donnovael! See I just did that just now. Its connecting the dots. Combined with Se, its spontaneously creating fantasies in your mind about the future. If I'm with a girl I really like, I'll just start spontaneously imagining all these amazing date ideas. Problem is that's the only time it comes out of me.

That's my understanding of it at least. The ability to connect the dots. Its why an INXJ could make some bogus conspiracy theory based on the fact that you dropped a pea on the ground.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Ne









Ni


----------



## Green Girl (Oct 1, 2010)

*Pattern is everything*

I can't understand or process information unless I can put it into a context, or fit it into a pattern in my mind. I can't even remember it most of the time. If you ask my phone number I'll get it wrong about half the time, because those are just random numbers. I can't remember my children's birth dates very well either. However, if you ask me to analyze what effect their ages might have on their personalities, I could not only go on for an hour, but during that conversation I would remember their birth dates without any trouble, because they now fit into a meaningful context.


----------



## PaintingThoreau (Oct 5, 2010)

It is hard to desfine the N process/way of seeing, but the way I would visualise elements of it are:

a) For complex problem solving/dilemmas: you are holding all these strings loosely and it looks like a mess and you just relax into that and give it some time and suddenly the strings pull tight and you have a tapestry - the answer just 'appears'. Mostly the less effort the better. I can go to bed and wake up with a solution - it's just there.

b) For interacting with the outside world: it is a little like being in a dream when you are around big crowds of people, with new people you are getting a vibe about them quickly and jumping over the usual small-talk steps pretty quickly...in a grocery line...in a train - see 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'. The Kate Winslet character is an extreme and chaotic version of the Ne approach to people (in my opinion anyway). 

c) Very close contact with the unconscious: I can remember thousands of dreams I have had over the years, and they all connect together much like that 'dream fasting' in the Dark Crystal. I dream a lot about the ocean and feelings about places and those feelings can come into life. I think that is where the 'other worldliness' of a lot of Ns comes out...even the most extreme NT with his or her intellectual debates probably has a few dragon toys in their bottom drawer...or used to....


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

3pnt1415926535897932384 said:


> Ne
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's quite good...so is "about the box" (Ni) vs. "outside the box" (Ne).


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> This seems to be a good link for examining Ni and scenarios. Also contains comparisons w Ne and other....
> 
> Introverted Intuition
> 
> ...


Wow. That just took the most mysterious and difficult-to-understand function for me, the only one I couldn't put a finger on...and suddenly made it click.

Comparing it to my Si (seeking out the "proper" essence of what something is)...yeah, it all makes sense. Corresponds perfectly. You have _no_ idea how much and for how long I've puzzled over this. Now you (or Lenore who whoever) has just summed it up for me in one tight paragraph. Thanks a lot!


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

nevermore said:


> That's quite good...so is "about the box" (Ni) vs. "outside the box" (Ne).


comparatively, yes. Or really, I should say that Ni is able to construct a box to fit anything inside of, so that it is not limiting. Well, Ne is stuck inside of a different sort of box in that it can mainly only connect existing ideas, not dig them seemingly out of nowhere.

That illustration was meant to show... 
Ne= multiple connecting; associative.
Ni= penetrating... more to it than that, but can't put it in words exactly.

I will try and put it in a way that a dominant Ti can understand. When you look at Te, it seems weaker than Ti, caught up in the surface-logic unable to grasp what is underneath, yes? But at the same time it is more useful in the real world, more practical. Every introverted function is the same way when compared to its extroverted counterpart.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

3pnt1415926535897932384 said:


> comparatively, yes. Or really, I should say that Ni is able to construct a box to fit anything inside of, so that it is not* limiting*. Well, Ne is *stuck inside of a different sort of box* in that it can mainly only connect existing ideas, not dig them seemingly out of nowhere.
> 
> That illustration was meant to show...
> Ne= multiple connecting; associative.
> ...


I don't know where this obsession with "limitations" comes from. I don't think_ I_ ever brought limitations up, did I?

Just recently, I saw a discussion on NTs get derailed and basically ended up talking about the "limitations" of the different INT types. I took part in the conversation because it was fascinating, but I have to admit it doesn't run through my head all that often.

I guess you might have thought "about the box" sounded limited, but it's not really, especially if you choose to view the world as a box. To me, Ni sounds a lot more fascinating and certainly much more powerful than Ne...it always did. I _do _think Ne is more "whimsical" and "fun" and even more like the "popular definition" of imagination (you might choose to debate me here; to that I just say look at all those ENTP comedians) but it certainly can't accomplish anything "deep" all on its own. Goes along with it being more practical and less close to the true "essence" of what intuition is. We certainly don't have that psychic foresight you guys have, not to the same degree. But combined with Ti the thinking process becomes much deeper, just as the similarly "less pure" Te is fueled by the awesome insights (or whatever you want to call them) of Ni. But with all this being said, I don't think Ne is worth any less than Ni, nor Te less than Ti (Te and Ne have their own unique powers)...like you said, they just do something different.

I can see why you might be frustrated that someone fails to understand Ni however...you feel like you are being sold short. I have been similarly frustrated by Fi-users who (quite understandably) fail to understand that my dominant Ti is _not_ the same thing as their inferior/tertiary Te, and they harbor some rather (to me) belittling and ultimately false conceptions of my type (but to their credit, they do not see it as belittling, just stating what they think are facts...just as my apparent misunderstanding of Ni was not intended to belittle you). Perhaps we are both the victims of "introverted function arrogance", ha ha ha.


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

Most simple explanation that I can give for Ni:

Looking at the present situation to see how things will unfold in the future.

Examples:
- Meeting someone and knowing if you will be good friends with them based on opinions, views, personality traits, etc. that I see upon the initial conversation.
- In a group of people, knowing who will do what work and how they will work together based on what I've observed in the present & over time (so a few weeks, perhaps).


Here's a good metaphor for it:
You have a blurred picture of the future. You can't see enough to understand what the picture is portraying but all of the hard lines and shadows you can easily see.

If you want an elaborate explanation, go under "INFJ Personal Videos" and watch my second video on Ni.


----------



## Random Ness (Oct 13, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> Lenore characterizes Ni as "about the box" as opposed to Extraverted Intuition's "outside the box".


No wonder I suck so much at out-of-the-box thinking. :tongue:


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

Based on what I've read here, it sounds like Ne is resourcefulness. "This object isn't here, but this would probably work just as well, even though it isn't meant for this purpose." Which confuses me a bit. A lot of "S's" are resourceful in thinking "outside of the box." I've been stuck in a few ruts, but I've always seen ways of using things outside of their intended purpose, if needed. It's not my initial reaction, however. I typically view things for what they are, but the second I need something or get into a tense situation and I'm at a lack of what I need, I start looking outside of the box.

If that is Ne, which would be a shadow function for me, how am I able to use it so well in certain situations? I'm certain Ti, Se, Ni and Fe is my cognitive set.

P.S. Not trying to argue, just get a better understanding of this.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

xReBoRN7 said:


> Based on what I've read here, it sounds like Ne is resourcefulness. "This object isn't here, but this would probably work just as well, even though it isn't meant for this purpose." Which confuses me a bit. A lot of "S's" are resourceful in thinking "outside of the box." I've been stuck in a few ruts, but I've always seen ways of using things outside of their intended purpose, if needed. It's not my initial reaction, however. I typically view things for what they are, but the second I need something or get into a tense situation and I'm at a lack of what I need, I start looking outside of the box.
> 
> If that is Ne, which would be a shadow function for me, how am I able to use it so well in certain situations? I'm certain Ti, Se, Ni and Fe is my cognitive set.
> 
> P.S. Not trying to argue, just get a better understanding of this.


Because Ne isn't just about "objects". The best way I can describe it (I did not make this up, but it's pretty accurate) is pulling an idea out of a stream of ideas. It is extraverted because unlike Ni, it is not an all-encompassing "world view" but, like Se, is situational and can only be energized through action. 

There are many similarities. It thinks "what could we do" situationally and in real time, like Se. Although it does not work as well as Se for picking up objects, it can often be used for that purpose. An ISTP will more often say "we need x to do this" and an INTP will say "look at all the things we could possibly do with x". Se when used concretely is "utilizing things in a pinch", Ne when used concretely is thinking of what stuff things in general could possibly be used for, in a pinch or not.

Ne is best used for brainstorming, drawing connections beetween things, seeing patterns, and picking up on what is very subtly implied...deducing, as it will, like a sixth sense. It senses the the invisible links that bind reality together and what new links in the web of life we can make in real time.

Remember extraverted functions are less "pure" and more practical than introverted functions so Se and Ne will resemble each other slightly more than Si and Ni.

Feel free to ask more questions if you want.:happy:


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

nevermore said:


> Because Ne isn't just about "objects". The best way I can describe it (I did not make this up, but it's pretty accurate) is pulling an idea out of a stream of ideas. It is extraverted because unlike Ni, it is not an all-encompassing "world view" but, like Se, is situational and can only be energized through action.
> 
> There are many similarities. It thinks "what could we do" situationally and in real time, like Se. Although it does not work as well as Se for picking up objects, it can often be used for that purpose. An ISTP will more often say "we need x to do this" and an INTP will say "look at all the things we could possibly do with x". Se when used concretely is "utilizing things in a pinch", Ne when used concretely is thinking of what stuff things in general could possibly be used for, in a pinch or not.
> 
> ...


So for example, Ne would see a flashlight and think naturally about all of it's potential and how it's linked to other things(tried to come up with examples and I really can't see a flashlight as anything more than a flashlight right now, haha. A cylindrical plastic casing, a bulb, a spring, a switch, two batteries etc. along with "light" is all I'm drawing up right now.) whereas Se, sees it for what it is. Given circumstantial deficits though, Se would start to think outside of the box a little more(batteries generating electricity, heat for fire etc.)?

Probably not the best example. Feel free to provide a better one.


----------



## ozu (Apr 28, 2011)

ukinfj said:


> @ozu I see where you're coming from. However, I think there is still some validity in the model. Ne tends to have a little bit more direction to it than Ni. Ni stays in the moment and analyses according to the thing it is presented with. It does not see other possibilities like Ne does, it builds on what is already known, grabbing information related to the thing it is presented with (on the paradigmatic axis) and throwing them all together until they feel everything clicks into place and they have a universal view.
> 
> Ne moves on from the thing they are presented with. Somewhere else (possibly on this thread) said about the example of a measuring cup. Ne looks at the measuring cup and sees loads of possibilities for its use. True, this may lead to confusion and indecision, because your brain is constantly looking at future possibilities and these are multiple. Ni, on the other hand, is static. That is not to say it isn't future looking - as N necessarily is - but that it creates ideas of the future based on known knowledge. It simply builds on what it has been given rather than creating new ideas. My idea about the writing stories thing was simply an example of the fact that Ne improvises. True, an INFP might get distracted and go do something else :tongue: but it is capable of producing new ideas much more easily than Ni. Ni simply innovates what it has been provided with and so is less original in some senses. It combines a load of ideas on different levels in a very unconscious way. So when an Ni user works out a puzzle, they do not say "this then this then this" - using what might be seen as a "logical" thought process of cause and effect. Their thinking is very unconscious and the answer may appear in their minds, but it will only really be built on a convergence of a load of old material. See how the paradigmatic axis converges thoughts that are already related to the original object anyway? A new idea can be created by simply mushing them together and seeing another point of view, or adding something, taking away, etc. Ne moves away from the original object and is able to create new ideas that are not necessarily related to the object. So, in the picture above, you have the sentence "the man cried". Now, "man" and "cried" are not related, they are in this sentence, of course. The sentence makes logical sense. Man and cried can fit together so long as they are put in context (in this case the context is the sentence). Ni, on the paradigmatic scale, doesn't really move on. When it sees "man" it goes "boy, child, adult, responsibility" - it grabs a load of related stuff and sticks there. Fair enough, if you find a convergence between all of those paradigmatic ideas, you have a new idea - but its actually a kind of reshaping of the old. While "man" and "cried" are only related in the context of the sentence (or the Ne users mind - which creates *new* patterns). "man" and "boy" and "child" are already related regardless of context.
> 
> Does this make sense?


Yeah, this is good stuff. It was the noun to verb connection after all that made me think a bit about the Se implications. If one voids those diagrams of semantic meaning, they really work. My best friend is INFJ, and we often have conversations like,

Her: I really want to write, but I need ideas!
Me: I really want to get out my ideas, but how!

Oh, and though Ni might be unoriginal in the way it runs its course, to me, subjectively, it very often seems very fresh, very magical. I suck at it, so I relish hearing what it has to say. I suppose I understand Ni to a certain extent, but witnessing its actual process is always such a treat. Guess it's just hard to see past one's dominant function to its flipside.


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

This is fucking great  I just realized why is so great to have Ni dominant to chat with.
Ne + Ni = never ending love that lacks present so much.

It would be great to switch Ne on to generate ideas, use Ti to decide which are truly worthy and finish this with Ni vision that would put all the missing parts in the place.


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

The way I see Ni is to compare it with Si. Si takes in concrete information and experiences and store it in a database for future use. So when Te (in case of STJs) needs to do something and need to figure out how to do it, it queries the Si database and Si returns the appropriate information accordingly. "I need to do X. I've done X before in the past. Here's how I did it. Let me do it again." or "I need to do X. Y has done X before in the past. Let me see how Y did it. I'll replicate what he's done." 

Ni is used similarly in the case of NTJs. But whereas Si stores concrete information and experiences, Ni stores abstract theories and abstract understanding of how the world work. These theories are then able to be used to explain, predict, or give suggestions on how to control external situations. When Te needs some information to do something, it queries Ni with the situation, Ni then uses the theories stored in it to give suggestions on what to do given what the theories stored by Ni explained or predicted. 

So perhaps one day, the NTJ reads up some book about economic theory. This theory is then stored by Ni in its theoretical inventory. Then in the future, perhaps the NTJ needs to decide what major to choose in college. So he asks Ni what to do in this situation given that he wants to maximize income....Ni then answers based on its theoretical inventory: well by basic economic theory of supply and demand, the lower the supply and the higher the demand, the seller can command a higher price and therefore higher profits. Given this insight, the NTJ then does some research and decides to choose a major that is in short supply yet is in high demand by employers so that his possible future income is maximized. 

The good thing about Ni is that since the information stored by it is abstract, it is applicable to a wide variety of circumstances, even those that are new or have never been experienced by anyone, whereas Si tends to stutter whenever it is presented with something new. The drawback is that the information can often be too general and lack specific details whereas the information returned by Si is rich in details. The Ni user often need to resort to sensing to fill in the details of Ni's suggestions.


----------



## Quelzalcoatl (Dec 6, 2010)

ukinfj said:


> An INFJ is more likely to write a story by having a vague concept in their mind and they will mull over it and get frustrated that that picture doesn't make sense and then they stop thinking about it for a couple of days and then one morning they're in the shower and - POP! Not just part of the story but the complete story. All laid out waiting for you seemingly obvious.


That's it exactly. Or at least, that's how it works for me. If I have a problem that I just can't connect to anything, and trying to jam the square block into the circle opening, I know that I can try, sitting at my computer for days on end. If at first I don't succeed, however, and the solution doesn't come to be as easy as I'd like - or I am used to - I just go and do other stuff; I sometimes do the dishes, or just shower, or sit on the toilet playing games on my phone.

Then I get this sensation of things rolling around in my head, a sort of back-and-forth dialogue that's not really words but just really... sensations.. And suddenly, everything's clear to me. When I then return to the work at hand, I can describe to incredible detail why something works in what manner, what it's used for, and what the most likely future scenario is going to be.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Quelzalcoatl said:


> That's it exactly. Or at least, that's how it works for me. If I have a problem that I just can't connect to anything, and trying to jam the square block into the circle opening, I know that I can try, sitting at my computer for days on end. If at first I don't succeed, however, and the solution doesn't come to be as easy as I'd like - or I am used to - I just go and do other stuff; I sometimes do the dishes, or just shower, or sit on the toilet playing games on my phone.
> 
> Then I get this sensation of things rolling around in my head, a sort of back-and-forth dialogue that's not really words but just really... sensations.. And suddenly, everything's clear to me. When I then return to the work at hand, I can describe to incredible detail why something works in what manner, what it's used for, and what the most likely future scenario is going to be.


Yes! This is exactly my experience


----------



## themartyparade (Nov 7, 2010)

NiDBiLD said:


> I percieve it as a barely conscious connection process. A bit like your mind is laying some puzzles over time, and it only presents you the finished ones.
> 
> It's like you didn't get it before, but the last piece just fell in place, and you understand it all. It's binary. From no understanding to full understanding. Suddenly.
> 
> It feels very zoomed out. No details, just concepts and how they are connected.


This happens to me quite a lot. I have something I just can't grasp and subconsciously it grows in the back of my head and a few days later, I wake up after a good nights sleep and it's like I have an epiphany and just understood everything.


----------



## FreeSpirit (Jun 1, 2011)

NI:


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

yes. When you speak naturally or think like previous video, you are Ni ^^
Seriously, natural massive use of symbolism/wording stuff and time related stuff ("Another week has vanished into the netherness of "history"." ) is Ni.
Otherwise, it isnt.
abraxas make a fairly good demonstration of Ni here : 
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/56401-down-rabbit-hole-introverted-intuiting.html

Another way to name Ni is "intuition of time"
They often excell into lyric.

Second INTJ i see identifying well with real Ni, it confort into my view that on the contrary to INFJ/INFP and ISFJ/ISFP, INTJ vs INTP are rarely mistyped.


----------



## Quelzalcoatl (Dec 6, 2010)

ukinfj said:


> Yes! This is exactly my experience


Another example, using parts of Rise Against's "This Is Letting Go";

This is the part where the needle skips,
And the chorus plays like a sink that drips.
A syllable repeating, like a warning we aren't heeding.
-- A problem happens, and everything gets stuck, instead of coming with a solution, your mind just keeps repeating the problem in your head; you're stuck.

Until all of a sudden we noticed it,
When the wheels brace and the tires grip.
A map we've been misreading,
A defeat we're not conceding,
Until now.
-- And then suddenly, appearingly out of nowhere, you get an epiphany about what needs to be done, and what you're doing at that point is dropped abruptly as realisation seeps in.

The wind died,
The whole world ceased to move.
Now so quiet,
Her beating heart became a boom.
We locked eyes,
For just a moment or two.
She asked, "Why?"
I said, "I don't know why, I just know."
-- You can't really explain how you got to the conclusions you came to, just that they're there, and you _know_ they're right if only by an incredible gut feeling. People want you to explain how you got there, or why you think that, but you really can't. "I just know." That's all you can give them.


----------

