# Ti vs. Ni?



## shadowjasmine (Apr 19, 2013)

I'm still confused between Ti and Ni because they're both system building functions so will someone explain the difference, examples of each would also be appreciated.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

For me, Ni is a perceiving function and I experience it as akin to sense perception (I get visual images, visceral gut sensations etc). 

Ti is a much more obviously analytical process and in me. Ti functions to bring Ni information (and other information) into my clear conscious awareness so I understand the categories and relationships analytically.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Aquarian said:


> For me, Ni is a perceiving function and I experience it as akin to sense perception (I get visual images, visceral gut sensations etc).


Could you go on a bit more about your perceptions, those gut sensations, and the visual images...and how you build your world?


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

Ti dominant (or secondary) is constantly trying to "find what isn't true in the system," in order to figure out problems. Once all false constructs are removed, the Ti user can "get to the goal." Considered a "subjective" judging function, it's a very internal process.

Ni dominant (or secondary) is a perceiving process, which is a subjective way of identifying one's surroundings. Energized by symbolism and catalyzing change in other those around them, Ni also strongly focuses on a personal dream or goal.

Both behave differently depending on what type of function they complement.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

lycanized said:


> Could you go on a bit more about your perceptions, those gut sensations, and the visual images...and how you build your world?


The first thing I would say is that *I don't build *the world that Ni relates to. That world exists and I perceive it.

Gut sensations: One way I've described it is it's like I'm a tuning fork and I can feel things vibrating and sometimes they feel well and sometimes painfully dissonant... I feel this in my body but it is a response to what's going on at the layer of reality that Ni picks up.

Images: I can give a few examples that come to mind at the moment: Moving streams of different colored "energy" (for lack of a better word) flowing like rivers/streams in a forest-like landscape and this is a way to see what is going on around me in my local life; seeing from inside an overwhelming nightmarish grey swirling world where all is dull and then pulling back and up into a different scope to see the person caught in this world as a deep green shining gem in full sunlight with the grey nightmare world just a thin fragile thing I could brush aside easily with my hands like old fragile cobwebs (difference between being inside and outside of that grey world); view of vivid blue strands of an interconnected web activated in connection .. just a few of the things that come to my mind as examples right now.

For me, Ti also can use images/visuals, but they're more about analysis. I drew out a map of a cultural system in an organization, I will "see" categories and how they intersect or don't, etc. Not the same as Ni information at all, for me.


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

I think of Ti as concrete logic; Ni as abstract images and symbolism.
Ti as what doesn't fit in the puzzle; Ni as defining the whole puzzle as a collective entity.

I don't really know what I'm talking about, though I'v

Always wondered what the INFJ experience with these functions was like (or any type that "uses"/prefers Ni-Ti)


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Aquarian said:


> The first thing I would say is that *I don't build *the world that Ni relates to. That world exists and I perceive it.
> 
> Gut sensations: One way I've described it is it's like I'm a tuning fork and I can feel things vibrating and sometimes they feel well and sometimes painfully dissonant... I feel this in my body but it is a response to what's going on at the layer of reality that Ni picks up.
> 
> ...


_
Could you tell me what you think of these posts in the way of Ti(with Ne) versus Ni?_



> I think it'd be really hard for you to develop Ne since your main way of taking in the external is through sensing. I find that my Ne works really well when I write, though. Try picking an interesting topic and just write. Free your mind, disconnect it from the reality that has been laid out for you, and write...and don't give a shit about structure or any other rules. Surrender yourself to abstract chaos for a little while





> I think language is a flawed medium. Any language. And that's ok, with most any language, all you're gonna transcribe is bits and pieces, you're never gonna actually know what anyone is saying. Not with any significant wholeness. Art comes closer because with art, you're expressing things from the core, the primal being before it is fucked by concrete language(i specify 'concrete' because I like writing) and at best, the meaning can take you like a wave and you 'just know' what it is because it's obvious to your primal self. But the medium is only the medium. If it fails, it doesn't mean there's a failure in the thought itself.
> Anyway, subjectivity rules us. Objectivity isn't humanly attainable.
> I've been called a solipsist before.
> 
> When it happens, even with more earthly thing, I don't doubt myself. Sometimes I might go into 4w3 mode and take delight. Other times 9w1 mode and just shut up and not bother because I don't want to be obnoxious. Either way, I think it's just a failure in language and if something is legitimate to me, then that's what matters





> This is why I think that language is limited if it wasn't clear earlier.
> Inside of a person are ideas, thoughts, feelings, and impressions are in a form you can see and know and are a part of you, but weren't made to be put into a form that has constraints and rules hanging down on its expression. It's not in concrete terms, but it can be endlessly complex and expanding. Completely free. And actually expressing it in a way that doesn't rape it of anything essential takes surrendering yourself to something abstract, absurd, nonconstrained. it's part of the reason I  really don't care for grammar rules when I write, or even other writing rules
> 
> Language arose for practical purposes. The same as striving for an objective world. It's always about how you can effect the external and what you can do, not what you can express or what you can find. I love indulging in my subjective worlds. It's what I do everyday. And personally, I'm always trying to connect myself with my subconscious. to me, that's where art comes from and not only that, I think it holds many insights and secrets that people are not always consciously aware of
> ...





> I have a very strong Ne and I do go on Ne trips. I often indulge in flights of absurdity and greatly love engulfing myself in an impressionistic, primal world. I'm very curious and can have have a strong sense of wonder when I'm not depressed. But most of the time, my Ne works in my Ti worlds. Ne is the means of building up the worlds I have and put myself in everyday. And ENTPs are more active even if they aren't so social, I'm very withdrawn


----------



## DarkSage (Jun 20, 2013)

This is my take on Ti and Ni 

Ti is a judging function. It tends to create a logically coherent framework and make decisions according to that preexisting framework. For Ti users, it is important to have internal structure and order. Ti dominant users attempt to quickly move towards closure and have things sorted i.e. have a logically coherent model in their head to make their decisions with. Ti judges and comes to conclusions with "does it make logical sense or not?" Having a dominant judging function, IPs (Ti and Fi doms) are more organized internally then IJs (who are structured externally but not internally).

Ni in contrast is a perceiving function. It does not necessarily make decisions or use rigorous deductive logic to form logically coherent models. I see Ni looking at stored abstract ideas and impressions from a different and unique perspective or angle attempting to find a new way of intepreting a system. It takes various ideas and concepts and connects them to a focal point forming a vision of how things will be. Ni dominant users would then analyze and implement their vision using their Auxiliary function (Fe or Te). A Ni 'vision' is not logically rigorous like a Ti model. It is very abstract and relatively vague in the sense that it does not take details into account. As a result, Ni visions are easier converted into plans of action with Te or Fe then explained. Other the other hand, Ti models and frameworks are easier to explain to others. An Ni user often has an aha moment knowing that something is true but would have difficulty immediately knowing or explaining how he came to that conclusion.

Ti creates internal logical order and thus values precisely defining systems and terms. Ni wants to percieve systems from new and different angles and perspectives so they may at times be uncomforable with restrictions placed by precise Ti definitions.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

skillchaos said:


> I'm still confused between Ti and Ni because they're both system building functions so will someone explain the difference, examples of each would also be appreciated.


N and S are perceiving functions. T and F are judging functions. So the first main difference between Ti and Ni is that Ti is a judging function and Ni is a perceiving function.

A perceiving function takes in information and reaches a conclusion. It doesn't have the need to make a decision. A judging function takes in information and takes a decision. It has to do that. It can't not do that.

Ti uses logic and compares new information to stored information (memory) and focuses on facts, initial conditions, etc. Basically it will find faults in the input information and then focus on that.

Ni uses logic too but looks at associations and similarities between the new information and stored information. So it's much less concerned with the details being right but comes up with similar situations and uses that (stored) information to reach a conclusion about what's going to happen next and then next and then next until it reaches a point where it's just not possible anymore to have any real certainty about what the next step would be.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Fern said:


> I think of Ti as concrete logic; Ni as abstract images and symbolism.
> Ti as what doesn't fit in the puzzle; Ni as defining the whole puzzle as a collective entity.
> 
> I don't really know what I'm talking about, though I'v
> ...


Can you please explain what you mean by "Ti as concrete logic?" Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "Ti as what doesn't fit in the puzzle?"


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

lycanized said:


> _Could you tell me what you think of these posts in the way of Ti(with Ne) versus Ni?_


1. The mode/approach of the comments is very Ti IMO

I first read the quotes for the mode of them rather than the content (meaning, I didn't focus on the specific points about language, I focused on what I perceive as the processes yielding the comments - does that make sense?)

Anyway, from that angle of vision, all of these quotes seem to me to be clearly sourced in/from Ti analysis, and Ne is something that person is trying to explain/analyze using a Ti analytical approach. The tone, crispness, approach all feels very Ti to me.

I don't see these comments as Ni-sourced at all - Ni is less analytical and more descriptive/experiential. 

2. Content

The only possible connection with Ni would be the apparent intersection of content - Ni information is often difficult to bring into consciousness enough to put into language so there's some surface level connection related to language and N insight/information.

But if I look closer, I don't see description of Ni. Ni information eluding words is almost like having a dream that you vividly get the resonance of but can't quite bring the actual linear narrative into consciousness. The content of this description related to Ne isn't so much about how hard it is to put Ne information into words as it is about how language constrains Ne - and more to the point, about about finding a way to be _free. _

While freedom would probably be a particular focus related to Ne, this may also have something to do with positioning of function. Ni is my dominant function and I don't need to find ways for it to be free because it is already free. Another way to put it would be: In me, Ti _serves_ Ni. The difficulty with language is conscious understanding of what is already there. I don't have to go seeking for Ni information, it's all around me, it's the field in which I most organically move, no seeking needed, just openness to what is already there, everywhere. Ti, in me, is there to help understand. It is in service to Ni, and it can't prevent Ni information from existing in my perception. The worst it could do is push me to second-guess what I perceive and that is actually Fe-Ti and they don't get along very well so that alliance always falls apart in the end.

Is this answering your question?


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Aquarian said:


> Is this answering your question?


That answers it, thank you. I really wanted an Ni-dom's perspective on all of that, so really thank you


----------



## sentilopis (Dec 13, 2010)

Accessing Ni, the person spaces out and feels for ideas that the unconscious may throw out. 

You often get some "stuff" when you focus on something(some worldly Se fact maybe).

To make sense of the "stuff", the subject would bring Ti in to sort things out with a coherent syntax.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Peter said:


> N and S are perceiving functions. T and F are judging functions. So the first main difference between Ti and Ni is that Ti is a judging function and Ni is a perceiving function.
> 
> A perceiving function takes in information and reaches a conclusion. It doesn't have the need to make a decision. A judging function takes in information and takes a decision. It has to do that. It can't not do that.
> 
> ...


I think that I have typed myself correctly but I'm still not sure. I took a test recently giving me high scores in Ni, Ti and Ne.

I created a similar thread: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/151459-ti-vs-ni.html

and I'm still not completely sure about it. Could the problem in my confidence in determining my type possibly due to he fact that I have high Ni, Ti and Ne?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

NichirenWarrior said:


> I think that I have typed myself correctly but I'm still not sure. I took a test recently giving me high scores in Ni, Ti and Ne.
> 
> I created a similar thread: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/151459-ti-vs-ni.html
> 
> and I'm still not completely sure about it. Could the problem in my confidence in determining my type possibly due to he fact that I have high Ni, Ti and Ne?


No, that's just Ti that's doing that. Together with Ne that is. Your Ni isn't that high probably. It may be you just like that function a lot or are associating your conscious thought processes with Ni, which basically means Ti-Ne together (INTP's think primarily through the loop of Ti-Ne) seem like Ni to you. But you can't be high on i and e on a single function. So high on Ni and Ne isn't possible.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Ti arrives at a conclusion through the conscious use of reason. Ni content is given, not a result of conscious reason.


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Can you please explain what you mean by "Ti as concrete logic?" Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "Ti as what doesn't fit in the puzzle?"


Certainly.

*Concrete Logic*
Focuses on objectivity and logic.
By "concrete", I basically mean: what's right in front of you, plain, obvious. Or at least... seems obvious to them  


*What doesn't fit Puzzle*

When listening to another's argument, those utilizing Ti can clearly see what doesn't fit this particular case. They can ignore other "puzzles", other arguments, in favor of fine tuning this one based solely on the argument the other person presents.... "Well, your logic was sound up to xyz. How do you account for this inconsistency?" 
If the other person cannot do this, the TiDom usually can, in my experience, by altering definitions to be more inclusive or specific (pending on the situation).


Am I way off-base here?


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

l don't really see how you could engage them the same way but l can't speak for Ni.

l can analyze anything l want to, from multiple angles...multiple angles is also mentioned with Ni but l'm not sure how they control the process. 

Ni is a storehouse of information, perceptions, associations, images, lots of things. l think of there being an ''aha'' moment, l don't know how easily the Ni dominant can sort through the material Ni gathers.

l sometimes like to take any topic and debate with myself internally, in real time.

l may apply some knowledge l already have stored to my internal arguments with Ti, but it just feels more like l'm ''doing'' something whereas Ni might be experienced like...''knowing'' something?

An angle might shift for Ni for reasons related to something more hunch/intution based whereas l am mechanically shifting these gears.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Peter said:


> A perceiving function takes in information and reaches a conclusion.


A perceiving function can't reach a conclusion. That's the inherent purpose of the judging functions.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

The notion that Ni system-builds is I think tied to INTJs being system-builders, more so than saying Ni has to be inherently about systems. 

To understand the difference, I personally suggest that you abandon the notion that Ni and Ne are _totally different things_
and instead understand what intuition is and is not. 

To do so, it is helpful to remember the difference between perhaps two of the easiest functions to explain: thinking and sensation. Sensation is tied quite literally down to your perception of sense information. 
Key is that from the data you must then _create_ a framework by which you can reach conclusions. For instance, there is a tree before you. But the act of classifying that it is a tree, not a bush, there you have acknowledged a framework by which you may judge truth and falsehood -- what something is and is not -- which is not tied down directly to what you are seeing before you, but indeed is something which could be referenced whether or not you are seeing "a tree". In fact, the very act of calling it a tree in your mind belies that you have placed it in one box, and not in another. Yet in a sense, when you perceived the tree, _without_ this framework, in infantile stage, you already _knew that it is not a bush. _But you wouldn't have framed it that way, now, because doing so would be pointless, a waste of effort for the purpose of merely knowing the object spoken of in one sense of "know," for what it is and not. 
. 
Intuition, then, is the perception which fills in that which is not sensed. 
The reason thinking often takes on the extroverted variety in an introverted intuitive is he/she has less use for the "boxes" I spoke of -- their thinking is more apt to measure things up against "reality" and to communicate their insights, engage the world, this and that. 

There's a reason Ni-dominants probably find the stereotypical INTP thing "define this, define that" tiresome, because after all, their vision of understanding is not so rigid or systematic, and N is already capable of understanding abstract insights without T creating a systematic version of them.

When an intuitive feeler tells you he/she just knows it "feels correct," and actually seems to have strong decision-making abilities, it's that their N sense may already see all the relevant abstract information, and their F may have a good sense of the shades of grey in assigning value to a given decision, and thus they make it without any of the junk I wrote of above -- no sensation, no thinking (or not _no_, just, not as much). Feeling reasoning is probably overall tougher to point out on paper than thinking reasoning.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Since you are both perceiving dominants.


Speaking for myself, my participation in _this _part of the discussion is very Ti-heavy. My focus is on the categories and accuracy of what's in which category. This is Ti trying to help me understand. So that's what you're seeing from me in this part of the dialogue.

Ni feeling something off is very different than this seeking-for-Ti-clarity mode. Ti can "feel" when things aren't making sense in an analytical way and can also feel when things are clear (Ti-gasm of clarity!). But Ni is really different than any of that. In contrast, Ni information is like ... the vibration feels off or it's a feeling in my gut or something vague and way below cognition and information flows in and then at some point I have to take some time to attend to it and then Ti comes up to do the analysis. 

Even as a perceiving dominant, I still have a process that includes Ti. When I read your comment, it engaged that mode because that's kind of where I am in this thread in a lot of ways - oooh, categories and relationships, how is this and this different, how do all of these things relate or not etc etc.

Edited to add:


PaladinX said:


> Also, I'm unsure what was the point in pointing out an inconsistency in the expression of a passing thought. To assume that is the sole reason why I think I'm an N or P dom doesn't make sense to me. I have many reasons why I could be any type or function. I think in gestalts. *Parts on their own may seem meaningless, but in the pattern/whole, they have meaning to me.* The way that you describe perceiving dominants and accumulating information, sounds a lot like me too. So does noticing inconsistencies off the bat.





> EDIT:
> 
> My perception is continuous. I "see" and "think" in patterns/wholes/gestalts. This is why I am having a hard time differentiating the meaning of our comments. It may seem clear to you, because most people have a discontinuous understanding of things; but without a clear defining factor of differentiation, I can't "see" it.


I don't see why Ti couldn't include thinking in gestalts. I feel like Ti is inductive and holistic in its analytic processes (unlike Te). Figuring out the relationships of parts to the whole is actually key in many of my Ti-analytical processes.

Edited yet again:

I wonder if part of why I am seeing it and you aren't is that I have already had to do Ti analysis of how Ni-Fe-Ti dynamic works in me - basically applying Ti analysis to a lifetime (so far) of experiences and figuring out how it works and how to discuss it in words and the cognitive function language. So I'm bringing that analytical understanding into this because it's understanding-work I've already done in relation to the topic of this thread (Ni versus Ti).


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> I don't see why Ti couldn't include thinking in gestalts. I feel like Ti is inductive and holistic in its analytic processes (unlike Te). Figuring out the relationships of parts to the whole is actually key in many of my Ti-analytical processes.


I don't understand the intention here. I would agree with most of that and do not doubt that I am a Ti user. :S



I think part of the misunderstanding here is that you think I think I might be an Ni dom. I was questioning Ne dom in the context with which my original comment was pulled from. I can relate to Ne much more than Ni. I know that the thread as a whole is about Ni vs Ti, but I was on a side-tangent with an accommodating ENTP.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I don't understand the intention here. I would agree with most of that and do not doubt that I am a Ti user. :S
> I think part of the misunderstanding here is that you think I think I might be an Ni dom. I was questioning Ne dom in the context with which my original comment was pulled from. I can relate to Ne much more than Ni. I know that the thread as a whole is about Ni vs Ti, but I was on a side-tangent with an accommodating ENTP.


Ahhhh! I thought you were talking about Ni given the topic of the thread. Maybe that explains all of the confusion! My apologies for not getting the specific context of your part of it.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

l remember what you posted about gestalts before @PaladinX and l related partially.

l think Se and Ne really can be more similar than even l understand, though.

l do remember that you said you usually type as ENTP and manipulate the tests, but l was wondering in which specific ways you think your perception is too literal to be Ne.

Simply ''literal'' in social settings or overall?


----------



## muffleupagus (May 14, 2013)

Wow what a mess of a thread this turned into. 

I think the differences are rather easy to see. 

Ti- consciously processing, and easily noticing exceptions, and inconsistencies.

Ni- grasping/perceiving a pattern/symbol without thought/reason.

I'm convinced that I have well developed Ti, and Ne goes bonkers when I'm hypomanic, HOWEVER, I also seem to utilize Ni when depressed. 

I'm not going to get into this not being possible, or would result in an unstable psyche, or whatever... it is, and I manage relatively well without meds.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

quantriqueptidez said:


> I'm convinced that I have well developed Ti, and Ne goes bonkers when I'm hypomanic, HOWEVER, I also seem to utilize Ni when depressed.
> 
> I'm not going to get into this not being possible, or would result in an unstable psyche, or whatever... it is, and I manage relatively well without meds.


That makes sense to me.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> How does this differ from Te?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know if you've gotten an appropriate answer, but the reason something doesn't "sound" right to a Ti user is because they are using a right-brain process that captures the bottom line explicitly and the rest is implied by the bottom line. That's where Se or Ne comes in... what the Ti user describes as being the method to get to the bottom line is dependent on how they perceive: if you're more likely to say "that is wrong because I trust sensation and sensation plus Ti says this" or the same with intuition instead.

This is at least how Lenore Thompson describes it, and this description of Ti as the right-brain "quick variable adjuster" of Se or Ne perceptions really clicked for me.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> I don't know if this will help, but maybe seeing the contrast between examples from an INTP and two INFJs will show it:
> *
> I. Ti-dom being served by Ne-aux*
> 
> ...


Well, what I am getting from @TheLaughingMan's post, is that Ti filters in _any_ oncoming information first _before_ accepting it; where as Ni accepts _all_ incoming info and only filters it _after_ the fact? Is this correct?


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

NichirenWarrior said:


> Well, what I am getting from @_TheLaughingMan_'s post, is that Ti filters in _any_ oncoming information first _before_ accepting it; where as Ni accepts _all_ incoming info and only filters it _after_ the fact? Is this correct?


Yes, exactly.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_NichirenWarrior_
@_OMG WTF BRO_ 

In regards to Ne, I think the key is it can be very generative. Se and Ne both inform you about oncoming information,which makes them similar in a way, but with different styles. But both can be plenty concrete. Like seeing something concrete and jumping to a concrete possibility that you see the potential for it to assume would be pretty Ne. The interesting thing about Ne is it can be both abstract and concrete depending on how used.

I'd say in one sense yes, the Ni dominant might accept things in informational form prior to filtering, but on another hand, Ni dominants tend to be drained by the Ne perspective, and Ni _needs_ Se to feed it external data (otherwise, it's generating based on Se data already fed). Think of the Ni vs Ne users as true introverts and extroverts for a moment even --- Ne is energized by external fodder, to generate symbolic insights, Ni is not, it draws inward. Just a very different attitude towards intuiting. It's helpful to view it this way even in a Ti-Ne type because even if they're introverts, if their Ne has any identity of its own, that's where they'll appear most extroverted.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

bearotter said:


> @_NichirenWarrior_
> @_OMG WTF BRO_
> 
> In regards to Ne, I think the key is it can be very generative. Se and Ne both inform you about oncoming information,which makes them similar in a way, but with different styles. But both can be plenty concrete. Like seeing something concrete and jumping to a concrete possibility that you see the potential for it to assume would be pretty Ne. The interesting thing about Ne is it can be both abstract and concrete depending on how used.
> ...


l've definitely had the same thoughts about the way the introversion manifests Ne vs Ni, with INTP.

Very interesting about Ne being concrete 

What l can say is that...the one thing l know to be 'trademark'of Se that l don't do, is _immediately_ make use of my environment by taking in what's available around me and then implementing it in a concrete way (but it sounds like Ne could something similar).

My process might be something more like, seeing something concrete in the environment, going inward and generating a somewhat unrelated but still useful possibility for implementing it somehow...rather than keeping the constant grounded approach the entire time like l imagine what's best suited for contact sports and similar activity.

lf l want to generate something completely impractical or get creative, l'd spend more time reflecting but who knows how both Ti and Ne work together in that process.


l can be more observant of concrete, literal details than the impressions l sometimes get from Ne descriptions.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> concrete way (but it sounds like Ne could something similar).




Naranjo calls Enneagram 8 linked to the Se type, but I've seen it linked to the Ne type (their instinct towards the external environment can border excessively intuitive but still probably on some level concrete). It sort of depends how one defines all these things. Socionics defines Se in such a way as to link it to even seeing "potential" in a way, but not potential in terms of traits, qualities, but rather more directly "how can this be set in motion". It still has a more immediate flavor. That would probably where aforementioned two perspectives of E8 collide most.

Ne can also be totally impractical and abstract though yeah.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

NichirenWarrior said:


> Well, what I am getting from @_TheLaughingMan_'s post, is that Ti filters in _any_ oncoming information first _before_ accepting it; where as Ni accepts _all_ incoming info and only filters it _after_ the fact? Is this correct?


That seems accurate to me for Ni. I don't know that it is as accurate for Ti-tert in me, but that's only because of how i process and may be due to being a P-dom in the first place.

Ni: I actually hadn't thought about it terms of "accepting" but that's quite a useful word IMO. I _experience_ the perception from Ni, I don't filter it. So yes, that could be called accepting. I don't even consciously accept, I just experience. 

Ti: My data analysis process is inductive and starts by deliberately initially opening to a lot of data, as much without filtering as possible, and then the analysis that emerges is grounded from there. I move more and more toward filtering as time goes on and I see patterns, develop categories etc. In a formal project, I noticed that it takes a minimum of three months of not knowing what's going on at all "in the field" and just observing and experiencing before I even begin any sort of analytical process. In all of my informal projects ... I don't even have a timeline, it varies but could well be the same minimum, I haven't exactly tracked it. But there is a substantial period where Ti is NOT filtering or minimally so. But again, I suspect that's because I'm perceiving-dominant and so Ti-tert comes in only at certain times, and that it might work differently for Ti-dom? 

Now I'm wondering if there are any Ti-doms who do grounded theory type qual research, I can't imagine that would work because things would get filtered so much more quickly - but maybe I don't understand.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> The first thing I would say is that *I don't build *the world that Ni relates to. That world exists and I perceive it.
> 
> Gut sensations: One way I've described it is it's like I'm a tuning fork and I can feel things vibrating and sometimes they feel well and sometimes painfully dissonant... I feel this in my body but it is a response to what's going on at the layer of reality that Ni picks up.




I thought the tuning fork description was a very good snapshot of Ni.

In the way Se doesn't logically deduce how much something will weigh in order to throw it, how far two things are apart and how long it will take to travel between them, it just perceives them, Ni does not need to figure out ideas and concepts, it perceives them. Concepts fit together like jigsaw pieces, they have a certain shape and a certain place and that's that.

Se - "I can't pick up that ambulance with my human arms because... it's an ambulance? It's heavy? Duh. These jigsaw pieces don't fit, self evident."

Ni - Considers the information presented in a debate as if they were jigsaw pieces. "That's wrong because...well it's fucking wrong isn't it? These jigsaw pieces don't fit, self evident."

*Images are not Ni, imaginary or physical. *Se does the physical snapshots, mental imagery is handled by specific brain regions. If Se is like an eyeball looking at objects then Ni is like the tuning fork picking out sounds. Why does singing out of tune sound bad? It just does. 

The complex metaphorical descriptions of Ni given by most Ni dominants are horrible, it is just Ni looping itself trying to explain itself from inside out. The most visual type is ISFP and that has nothing to do with Ni. Ni doms happen to be quite visual but it is not Ni.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Bardo said:


> I thought the tuning fork description was a very good snapshot of Ni.
> 
> In the way Se doesn't logically deduce how much something will weigh in order to throw it, how far two things are apart and how long it will take to travel between them, it just perceives them, Ni does not need to figure out ideas and concepts, it perceives them. Concepts fit together like jigsaw pieces, they have a certain shape and a certain place and that's that.
> 
> ...


^ ^ This makes sense to me.

But I disagree with:



> *Images are not Ni, imaginary or physical. *Se does the physical snapshots, mental imagery is handled by specific brain regions. If Se is like an eyeball looking at objects then Ni is like the tuning fork picking out sounds. Why does singing out of tune sound bad? It just does.
> 
> The complex metaphorical descriptions of Ni given by most Ni dominants are horrible, it is just Ni looping itself trying to explain itself from inside out. The most visual type is ISFP and that has nothing to do with Ni. Ni doms happen to be quite visual but it is not Ni.


It just doesn't fit - it actually erases - my experience of how I receive Ni information. Some of it is tuning fork. Some of it is visual images. All of it is Ni perception in me. _You_ may be different. But for me, theory will not trump my lived experience. And I actually do perceive some Ni information visually. (also, I'm not overall a visual person so for me, the visual imagery aspect of Ni is especially notable in my case)


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

NichirenWarrior said:


> But how can you be so sure that it isn't the other way around and that it is really my Ne that is low? It would all depend on whether or not , I am an INTP or an INFJ.


Because if you would be Ni dominant, you wouldn't have these doubts.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

JSRS01 said:


> A perceiving function can't reach a conclusion. That's the inherent purpose of the judging functions.


I've had this discussion before. :happy:

A conclusion isn't a decision.

Ni dominant specifically is the best example. Ni dominant gives certainty. All data is perceived and 1 conclusion only is the result. This is not a decision. In an INTJ for example Te still has to process what Ni came up with and Fi also has to give its OK.

Ne dominant gives a different type of conclusion. Ne dominant gives many possible outcomes. This too is a conclusion of the perceiving process. Here too the second function has to process what Ne comes up with.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> ^ ^ This makes sense to me.
> 
> But I disagree with:
> 
> ...



I'm not different, I also experience some information visually and condense long periods of Ni bakings into visual themes. 
There is also a slight visual experience during Ni but let me try explain what that is.

(Incoming simplification of complicated brain activity, if any scientists read this, like, I'm aware I'm not writing a medical textbook ok)

According to Dario Nardi, Ni is the whole neocortex activating at once in a completely blended fashion, as opposed to the piece by piece individual region firing that is normal brain activity outside of the different functions special features. Functions appear as whole brain states, groups of regions doing novel combination stunts, they are really interesting and powerful brain activities.
Ni would look like this

View attachment 79100


Each beam would be pointing to a different region, but all regions are physically being used equally as one. 
Outside of function use there is basically one beam lighting up at a time.

Ni dominants, outside of functions, use the region nicknamed 'Visual Engineer' a lot, it's our 4th favorite. It's the region that lets you use your imagination CGI style. There are other visual regions and semi visual regions also, the 'Flowing Artist' region for example. 

Ni dominants both like the 'Precise Speaker' region a lot. Ni doms can talk talk talk talk talk, use complicated words in normal speech and are often heavily drawn to writing and reading, but this is not an expression of their Ni. Similarly, complex visuals are an expression of the 'Visual Engineer' and not Ni.


Now to make everyones brains feel horrible...

If you consider that Ni is the entire neocortex working in synch, then all of the visual regions are working when Ni is activated, and *so is everything else*.
The visual areas that Ni don't normally use much, the speaking region, the tactical navigation region, the mimic region, the region that is geared around your strongly held beliefs, the social responsibility orientated region, everything.
*This is the tuning fork,* this is where ripples of understanding make disturbances, as if a problem is thrown at your brain like a stone is thrown into a lake.

Yes there is some visual activity when Ni is activated, but only because Ni is everything activated at once and visuals fall into that.
Why that distinction is so important is because Ni is extended, totally synchronized, maximum expansion of the thought process and to describe to other people as visuals really makes it seem way more simple that it is, it is a horribly complicated, very subtle thing for working out horribly complicated and very subtle things. Trying to deliberately focus on your own Ni is impossible, like trying to look at the back of your own head with a telescope.

Using Ni feels like this - What does orange sound like? How much does 3pm weigh? If a tree falls in the woods, rotate hamsters, D.I.S.C.O banana? - and trying to explain the thought process as it happens is like trying to answer those questions, hence the need for Ni doms to talk for hours and write biblical posts in order to get across things that are actually individual 'Ni thoughts' to the Ni dom.

'Hey Bardo, what are you thinking?'

'HNNNNNNNNNRRRRRRRLOL @ >#~£££_Jazzhands_%&^*+=???'


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Bardo said:


> According to Dario Nardi, Ni is the whole neocortex activating at once in a completely blended fashion,
> 
> If you consider that Ni is the entire neocortex working in synch, then all of the visual regions are working when Ni is activated, and *so is everything else*.


Please keep in mind that the zen (synchronous) state is not Ni. Ni users frequently enter the zen state when problem solving or envisioning the future. All types can enter the zen state.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

Ne would be all of those beams lighting up at once, but they would all be different colors and shifting. The red ones would be maximum power, the blue ones very low power and there would also be yellow, orange, green...
Ne is like fireworks going off, very dazzling and over quite quickly.

Ni is like 10 minutes, maybe more, of stable blue.



Ti is like 3 gears on a gearstick. 

1st gear - A logic circuit of 4 beams that team up to work complex things out. Looks like a square formation. Each Ti type (INTP ISTP ESTP ENTP) 'owns' a corner and uses the other 3 a bit less.

2nd gear - 6 beams, the original 4 plus 2 others, turning red in a split second. A faster and more powerful version of the first one I suppose. Looks like the 6 dots on dice kinda. Looks at problems from 6 angles and integrates them. This what a Ti type would do in a debate, it allows the thinking to be readily polished into explanations.

3rd gear - A green whole brain state that sometimes appears when arguing, starting a new activity, task or meeting a new person. Can last for a few minutes.


*Ti types can think clearly and with levels of depth even with things moving around them, noise and other distractions.* Very opposed to the INxJs Se repressing mega meditation. Ti types are obviously introverted and tend to withdraw anyway.

I suppose they can think with distractions but prefer not to? Is that right?

The areas used by Ti are neglected by other types. Ti thinking is clear and detached, very logical. The green 3rd gear in interpersonal situations is like the neocortex detaching from raw emotive 'pollution'. Ti types also show the least interest in listening and aren't very good at reporting back what people have said.


----------

