# Trusting Ni/Ne



## bamboozle (Sep 3, 2011)

How do you do it >.>? What's it like? I actually have a lot of trouble trusting Ne. I almost always suspect it Ne hunches of being irrational and as a result, I second-guess a lot and don't even talk much without thinking something through. That means I don't share ideas either. I just don't trust a process to do its own thing. And sometimes, I'd kind of like to. 

Also, Ne is supposed to be the first direction of growth for an INTP and is supposed to help them out a lot. 

Any introverted judgers who know they've developed their perceiving functions and remember what it was like? Or N-doms the role N plays in their thinking/behaviour?


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure how to explain this, or even what sort of an answer you're looking for, but here goes.I do have a REALLY strong Ne, and even though I use it all the time, I don't always "trust" it. For instance, I had a physics test yesterday, and I read a problem, and immediately know the answer. However, what I suppose to be my Ti kicked in, and I questioned how iI got the answer. So I ended up spending an extra 3 minutes deciding how to actually solve the problem, when I had the answer right in the first place, and ultimately wasted time on a timed test. 

This happens a lot, and my original answer is almost always right. So Ne, in my case, is trustworthy. Ever since I realized this, I've started using Ne a lot more now, and don't even question myself being introverted. Did this help?


----------



## yitznewton (Jul 28, 2011)

I think Ne led me to become much more religious in college, while Ti (perhaps) made me leave my family religion for Judaism. But that's another story. I got interested in mysticism, which unfortunately meant this sort of pop-mysticism that's gained traction in a large portion of the Orthodox Jewish world in the last 20 years or so. (Not Kabbalah Centre.) Then I noticed that some big authority figures seemed to have some seriously unreasonable views/responses to some things that were happening (forgive the vagueness), and Ti kicked in again. Frankly I was more even-keeled when I was rolling with Ne. Ti has me riddled with doubts, paralyzed almost. I've gotten very interested in medieval Jewish philosophy as a result, but my religious life is much more sterile. I've been realizing this lately, and working on moving back to Ne, "trusting" it, and hugging the universe again. It will be slow work; I'm far more skeptical than I was in early college.

I went back home to my mom's house suburban CT recently, and started to get inspired by the much clearer view of the stars at night! I'm usually inspired when I go back there. We stay in my grandmother's old mother-daughter apartment; she died two years ago, and there's lots of memories in there. Especially my grandfather, who died in 1993 and was my only family male role model, my father having died when I was five.,


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

I'm very Ni-dominant. As a kid, I heard the phrase "trust your intuition" but I wasn't quite sure what intuition was and I didn't trust it because it didn't seem to be the logical thing. In my teens, I realized that my intuitive guesses were creepishly (almost psychically) correct, so I began to trust it quite a lot. It still feels a bit weird at times, when instead of weighing out pros and cons, I can just jump to the conclusion that proves good in the end. It's not always right, I can tell you that! But if you're pressed on a test and you did _not_ practice that type of problem at all.. it helps a lot!

With Ne I'm not as sure. It seems that I jump to a lot less correct conclusions using that one.


----------



## bamboozle (Sep 3, 2011)

Thanks for the answers! 


I'm just interested because I have a pretty conflicted relationship with Ne. 

There was an ENTP, I think, who was pretty respected in his field and came to do a talk. The room was filled with people who wanted to listen. But what he delivered was essentially mind-vomit. He just rambled about nothing; gestured toward maybe one or two good ideas and then stopped because he evidently hadn't thought through those ideas. I got the sense he figured he could just roll with it. That if he just spammed us enough with words, something would happen. 

Is that an Ne thing? I know I tend to look (irritatedly) on these occassions as displays of Ne with insufficient Ti. What's the thinking behind that? Is there thinking? Does Ne give reasons ever? 



DeductiveReasoner said:


> So I ended up spending an extra 3 minutes deciding how to actually solve the problem, when I had the answer right in the first place, and ultimately wasted time on a timed test.


It's interesting you say that! I think my reaction would have been, 'Oops…wasted time. But would do it again anyway!' It's precisely because Ne doesn't give reasons that it worries me >.>. It always feels like it's just saying 'I don't want to do it!' or 'I want to!' Does it feel like that for other people? Or is it just because it's a secondary function for me? 




Spades said:


> It still feels a bit weird at times, when instead of weighing out pros and cons, I can just jump to the conclusion that proves good in the end.


Do you weight out the pros and cons after you get your hunch? An INTJ friend of mine gets hunches about people, for example, but I know she doesn't like to say anything until she's got proof. Is that the same with you?


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

bamboozle said:


> Do you weight out the pros and cons after you get your hunch? An INTJ friend of mine gets hunches about people, for example, but I know she doesn't like to say anything until she's got proof. Is that the same with you?


It varies. It's not generally something I share with others _until_ it proves to be true, and inside I'm thinking "_I knew it!"_. When I do share, I make sure to include a "I'm not sure but I think..." disclaimer. "I'm not sure but I think" that with Ne, the possible connections you could make are endless, thus a lot of them are incorrect, but might be interesting. Ne is about seeing a situation/object and finding all sorts of connections between it and other ideas/objects. Ni is the thought process I used to string together that last bit, based on what I know about cognitive functions... Ni is not about tying _different_ ideas together, but about taking separate points of _one_ idea, and coming up with an entirely new piece of information/insight about it. It's like detective work. Thus, it could also be wrong, and could also produce infinite possible connections, but it's more directed and less "random" (thus, more trustable? Who knows).

I'm just blabbing now, but it was good to get my thoughts out. Thanks for the discussion ^_^


----------



## bamboozle (Sep 3, 2011)

Oh, no. Blab on, blab on. I like to see it. Heheh.

Haha! You sound like my INTJ friend — the bit about disclaimers and such. 

I definitely see what you mean about Ne and Ni. I do think Ni-Te is less "random" in some ways (at least, I know that I prefer Ni-Te humour to Ne-Ti humour because of that. There's something deeply amusing to Ti-Ne about Ni-Te…It simultaneously feels familiar and completely alien because there's a different kind of focus to Ni-Te). 

But on the note of them being similar and different, I wonder if the detective-work element you speak of is tied to Ni's relationship with Te as well? It's just that I've met Ni-Fe and it feels different. Maybe it's Te that gives it the focus?


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> For instance, I had a physics test yesterday, and I read a problem, and immediately know the answer. However, what I suppose to be my Ti kicked in, and I questioned how iI got the answer. So I ended up spending an extra 3 minutes deciding how to actually solve the problem, when I had the answer right in the first place, and ultimately wasted time on a timed test.
> 
> This happens a lot, and my original answer is almost always right. So Ne, in my case, is trustworthy. Ever since I realized this, I've started using Ne a lot more now, and don't even question myself being introverted. Did this help?


Wow, if this is Ne, then I don't have much of it. It sounds Ni-ish to me, actually. In your position, I wouldn't have seen _working out _the problem as "wasting time". I'd see it as confirmation of an answer I wouldn't have been too sure about anyway without proving it to myself first.


----------



## Five (Mar 27, 2011)

I put immense amount of trust in Ni, not because of faith, but because it has proven itself over the years.I t gives me immense confidence and security and then as a final dose of reality start extroverting my opinion and messaging and gathering feedback Se in the real world.

When I was younger you can get into a Ni "bubble" of delusion especially if your Te and Se are not developed. For me this was believing in religious nonsense up until age 20. I have a completely reductionist and systems evolutionary view on everything now. There are few few things I consider mysterious at all, but i seek out anything novel or any challenge nowadays with zeal.

The second reason why I'm so confident and successful is that I say inside strictly inside my zone of competence. I know what I know and more importantly know what I don't. Ne tends to just make suggestions all over the place. And with no Te to keep it in check it can start picking up patterns from everywhere and come up with some bizarre shit.

Thirdly Ne Ti is a divergent platform and Ni Te is convergent. Hence Ni Te is always going to be more "solid" but it may miss the black swan events or miss the "magic" ie Ni Te did not predict an iPhone, it was just too out there.

Lastly just to appease anyone's feelings here (which may get in the way of the truth of the content of what I say), in case the above sounds arrogant, I'm not saying Ni or myself is superior, Steve Jobs (ENTP) is just as amazing at using Ne as Gates (ENTJ) was at using Ni and Te.

I do think if you are an Ne user, my advice would be to surround yourself with a strong Se Te and possibly even Ni user to give you grounding. like an STP or NTJ ideally.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

Muser said:


> Wow, if this is Ne, then I don't have much of it. It sounds Ni-ish to me, actually. In your position, I wouldn't have seen _working out _the problem as "wasting time". I'd see it as confirmation of an answer I wouldn't have been too sure about anyway without proving it to myself first.


 Yeah, but if I already had it right, why bother working it out? Maybe on regular homework, but a timed test? NO WAY!

Just curious, how does that strike you as Ni?


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

bamboozle said:


> It's interesting you say that! I think my reaction would have been, 'Oops…wasted time. But would do it again anyway!' It's precisely because Ne doesn't give reasons that it worries me >.>. It always feels like it's just saying 'I don't want to do it!' or 'I want to!' Does it feel like that for other people? Or is it just because it's a secondary function for me?


 I think Ne kind of sums up the entire picture and makes everything click, and then Ti comes in and questions why everything clicks. Ne sees the big picture, and Ti breaks the big picture apart and analyzes it.

Since your Ti dom, it's not surprising that you have a harder time trusting Ne. All in all, Ne probably DOES have reasons, you just have to use Ti to break it down and figure out what they are. Good Luck!


----------



## Five (Mar 27, 2011)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> I think Ne kind of sums up the entire picture and makes everything click, and then Ti comes in and questions why everything clicks. Ne sees the big picture, and Ti breaks the big picture apart and analyzes it.
> 
> Since your Ti dom, it's not surprising that you have a harder time trusting Ne. All in all, Ne probably DOES have reasons, you just have to use Ti to break it down and figure out what they are. Good Luck!


Agreed. Ni and Te interplay in the same way, but obviously very different approaches to problem solving. I think Ne is just chaos, and Ne users think my Ni is weird.


----------



## Five (Mar 27, 2011)

The way I differentiate Ne vs Ni in my mind is this:

Ne predicts the future by extrapolating on a pattern or taking data points and then predicting where it will land up.

Ni predicts the future by saying why things "can't work". It's reductionist. It works on fundamental principles, (even though they are subconsiously operating). And once you eliminate all the things that can't work, you left with the only future that does work. I see the flaws in everything.

While Ne works from the opposite way, it see's what isn't there but could be. Ne is more creative.

Does that make sense?


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

Five said:


> The way I differentiate Ne vs Ni in my mind is this:
> 
> Ne predicts the future by extrapolating on a pattern or taking data points and then predicting where it will land up.
> 
> ...


Actually, that does make a lot of sense. What else is that I notice that my Ti will also jump in and keeps things from being too illogical. In that way, it can almost serve the same purpose as Ni.

For this reason, I love working with xNTJs. I can bounce ideas off them, and they keep my ideas from getting too ridiculous.


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> Yeah, but if I already had it right, why bother working it out? Maybe on regular homework, but a timed test? NO WAY!
> 
> Just curious, how does that strike you as Ni?


Maybe I'm still fuzzy about Ni and Ne, but the fact that you drew a conclusion that wasn't yet proven and you seemed so sure of it being the right answer.
Someone feel free to correct me because I'm not even sure about this.


----------



## Five (Mar 27, 2011)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> Actually, that does make a lot of sense. What else is that I notice that my Ti will also jump in and keeps things from being too illogical. In that way, it can almost serve the same purpose as Ni.
> 
> For this reason, I love working with xNTJs. I can bounce ideas off them, and they keep my ideas from getting too ridiculous.


Yeah and likewise Te vs Ti:

Te is a dumb brute, it organises into hierarchies and spot's what's missing in a set of elements, and is a blunt hammer, but it can wade through tons of BS quickly.
Ti is more logical and analyses all positions independently without making assumptions etc

Ti produces more solid theory, while Te is more expedient and more "grounded", more utilitarian


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

Muser said:


> Maybe I'm still fuzzy about Ni and Ne, but the fact that you drew a conclusion that wasn't yet proven and you seemed so sure of it being the right answer.
> Someone feel free to correct me because I'm not even sure about this.


It's not so much that it wasn't proven, it was more of my brain putting everything together so quickly I just had to say "wait a sec, how did I come to this conclusion?" and went back to reassure that I was correct.


----------



## TJSeabury (Nov 23, 2010)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure how to explain this, or even what sort of an answer you're looking for, but here goes.I do have a REALLY strong Ne, and even though I use it all the time, I don't always "trust" it. For instance, I had a physics test yesterday, and I read a problem, and immediately know the answer. However, what I suppose to be my Ti kicked in, and I questioned how iI got the answer. So I ended up spending an extra 3 minutes deciding how to actually solve the problem, when I had the answer right in the first place, and ultimately wasted time on a timed test.
> 
> This happens a lot, and my original answer is almost always right. So Ne, in my case, is trustworthy. Ever since I realized this, I've started using Ne a lot more now, and don't even question myself being introverted. Did this help?


@bamboozle (<-for your knowledge) 
Sorry that's not Ne, its just good memory recall. ^_~ Ne would be if you _*didn't*_ know the answer but you figured it out from random bits of info you noticed whilst taking the test. x_x

I know because that's how I take tests. If I struggle with a question I read other parts and a lot of the time I can narrow it down or find the answer in its entirety. ^^ That's how you use Ne; you take in info and things just click.
It's kind of like putting together a puzzle and you see where a piece goes from an empty spot because the pieces around it give you context. (<-for those who like visuals)

Then again you don't actually "use" functions, they are just a way to describe how we operate. >_>


----------



## bamboozle (Sep 3, 2011)

TJSeabury said:


> I know because that's how I take tests. If I struggle with a question I read other parts and a lot of the time I can narrow it down or find the answer in its entirety. ^^ That's how you use Ne; you take in info and things just click.


Holy wowz. My Ne can't do that that x.x. 

When you click…are you having to consciously narrow the options down?


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

My Ne rarely ever "just clicks". Loads of "Hey, what if I do it _this _way?" but, as far as I can recall, no sudden "Ah ha!" moments.
Sudoku is a good way of illustrating how my Ne works. I couldn't just look at the puzzle and see all the numbers in their place. My progress is slow, steady and all over the place (as I narrow things down) but reasoned every step of the way.

I may need more examples of this clicking. Perhaps it happens to me and I just can't recognise it.


----------

