# How do Ni dominants think (explained for an Ne dominant)?



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> The reason why I have to maintain my "maybe" is that you present a theory in which the dominant and auxiliary have opposing attitudes and yet you seem to use Jung as your primary source of knowledge even though it is still uncertain whether Jung thought the conscious functions aligned in that constellation or not. So far I haven't seen any convincing evidence that he believed in types like Te-Si instead of Te-Se, and at least in my own subjective understanding the latter seems more plausible.


Good observation.
I would say that to my best knowledge you are right, 
however I cannot run around on this forum representing types as Ni-Fi or Ni-Ti, 
or else people think I'm speaking about loops.

This is where we need to connect in the concept of the complex.
It is the key to understanding types on the individual level beyond the type boxes.



> "The synthetic capacity of the introvert merely serves to build complexes, as far as
> possible, isolated from each other. But such complexes are a direct hindrance to the
> development of a higher unity. Thus, in the introvert also, the complex of sexuality,
> or the egotistical striving for power, or the search for enjoyment, remains as far
> ...


Each complex is it's own little world, and the functions are the librarians.
As long as introverted functions are allowed to reign, there is more and more isolation of the complexes.
If on the other hand extroverted functions are allowed into the mix, the complexes are forced to adapt.
They must connect and reorder in order to make sense of the external information.
The more in conflict the information is with the complexes, the harder it will naturally be for the type to adapt.
Hence the 4 valued functions.
Two main librarians, and two outer trusted sources.
This is why the two others hurt so much, especially the PoLR as they call it in Socionics.
It runs counter to every inner complex and more or less shut you down in the effort to cope.



> I cannot quite decode how the quotes affirm your claims. Is the idea that introverts possess a dominant introverted function whose energy is arrested by archetypes, and that these archetypes seek a realization or experiential form, which the extraverted auxiliary functions then give them? So for an INTJ Ni's content is created(or at least experienced as true) in the outside world through Te?


Yes because the INTJ have learned to make the Ni librarian trust the Te source.



> Also, what's up with the pointing arrows? How is it different for Ni-Te than for, say, Fi-Ne?


I got the information from Jung, Jung got the information from Freud.



> I doubt I understand you correctly. In any case that doesn't seem to be what the quotes imply at all.


The problem in a nutshell is that my Ni is making too big jumps for your Ne-Si to follow.
I go ABC -> XYZ and then to me everything is clear.
This isn't to be difficult, it is just how my mind works.
Thinking about what it takes to make you follow makes me cringe, 
as I have to ask the Si librarian to join the party,
and I really don't like the Si librarian messing around in my complexes too much.
It is experienced as draining.
Trying to connect with Ne as a source is experienced as pointless.
Hence my ambition is just to play around with the topic playfully until you either get it or decide to call it quits.

That way I don't have to feel that I'm forcing myself to set out a goal that might be percieved as torture.
Namely charting out every single contextual step, by contextual step.

This is what you need me to do to understand, with an ISFP I would have the patience to do it.
To me you are sort of a false ISFP, you make the imprint, and hence I naturally fall into the role of the activator.
However after I'm done, you have learned some, but are still left with big questions and tons of holes.

I set this context, because I know that I would be hard pressed to satisfy you.
Hence I will not pretend that I'm able from the getgo.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Mr. Castelo said:


> I'm currently debating with myself whether or not I really use this function as my dominant one. It seems to me that everyone has a different meaning and use of it. This probably happens with most cognitive functions, but the difference between descriptions of Ni seems bigger to me, which makes it harder for me to identify this function within myself as I can relate to some descriptions, but not to others... It's a highly abstract function, hard to put on concrete terms, so I suppose everyone has different interpretations about how it works.


I have started to think that the variance - at least among those who are dom or aux Ni users - is, perhaps, what defines Ni more than the narrative itself.


----------



## vhaydenlv (May 3, 2017)

Mr. Castelo said:


> I'm currently debating with myself whether or not I really use this function as my dominant one. It seems to me that everyone has a different meaning and use of it. This probably happens with most cognitive functions, but the difference between descriptions of Ni seems bigger to me, which makes it harder for me to identify this function within myself as I can relate to some descriptions, but not to others... It's a highly abstract function, hard to put on concrete terms, so I suppose everyone has different interpretations about how it works.


Well if you're reading INFJ's descriptions of Ni, I can understand that it'll sound foreign to you especially since I use my Ni mostly with and for people.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

I've seen it described as being like a line of best fit on a scatter plot. That's true for me. I also liken it to Kanizsa's triangle:










In a given instance it envisions a singular, abstract implication based on the available concrete details, which is why its users are often drawn to archetypes and symbols. (Cognitive science and semiotics was a part of my degree program in college for a reason, for instance.)

In a very real sense "thinking" about things for me often means not actively thinking about them, but seeking out and passively absorbing or casually investigating the background of an issue until I simply _see_ the apparent truth or the solution, see the triangle as it were. None of it becomes expressible in a linear way until I am at the point where I need to explain it to others or lay it out and record it for myself.


----------



## MusiCago (Jan 3, 2017)

To make it simple, Ni attempts to perceive one meaning/interpretation behind sensory given information (aka truth in the user's subjective mind); this means that Ni users are completely unaware that the meaning they found within an idea is completely subjective. Ne, however, attempts to find all the possible interpretations behind one single idea, and asks what *could* happen, not what *will* happen. Ni is _convergent_, taking in a lot of sensory information through Se, then squashing all the information into one grand idea and meaning. Ne is _divergent_, taking a single idea and finding all possible and impossible interpretations of it, never settling on just one.


----------



## vhaydenlv (May 3, 2017)

Ni for me is a child putting a puzzle together in the back of my mind and once in a while, the child show me the big picture they made. If Fe and Ti decides that the picture is incomplete or wrong, the child take it back, keep adding pieces to it until they think it fits and show it to me again, and so on. 

Practically, and let's use MBTI as an example, it's reading about types and functions until my mind get a good enough understanding of everything that it won't need to rely on the text-book explanation to type someone. What I read starts to fade away but I don't forget it, and when I type someone I just know what Fe or Ne is supposed to look like.

Ni is basically adding up everything I've ever read about a topic or someone to form an image of it. Ni is usually described as "the big picture". Sometimes it's just a vague feeling, that same kind of feeling you get when you don't like someone and can't pinpoint why. Sometimes Ni is very right, sometimes if left unchecked, Ni can start feeding itself a very distorted version of reality.

I've also read someone describe it like that:
Ne looks at a box and makes 6 new boxes out of each sides i.e new possibilities.
Ni looks at a box, sees each side and try to understand how they fit together.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, Ni never shuts up. It's literally like I have someone in the back of my head classifying every interactions I have in the huge spider web that is my brain. If I get caught in it, I can space out for an hour straight in front a Fermi Paradox lecture on YouTube.


//@MusiCago Great explanation.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Turi said:


> Have you ever wondered whether you're an Ne user, and not an Ni user?


Not really. I've considered I might be an INTP, but in conversations I never feel I am speaking the same language as xNTPs. The descriptions of Ne that I read sound either foreign or scattered to me. As I understand it, Ne isn't as limited conceptually in how it connects things, so the thought process and ideas that get related to one another appear more dispersed. It's more obvious in an Ne dom but the examples I've heard about will go something like cheese -- dairy -- oh mice eat cheese too -- cats eat mice -- mammals -- isn't it funny that humans are related to monkeys?

That is why Ni is sometimes described as being more constrained or narrow (as is the case with all introverted functions compared to extroverted). It'd be more like cheese -- dairy -- yogurt -- calcium -- how much fat does a cheese need to have to offset the benefits of calcium? -- lowfat cheese probably doesn't taste very good -- oh that reminds me I need to buy milk today.

Ne went from cheese to human phylogeny, Ni went from cheese to another type of dairy. Ni is bound by its own mental contents, which is why Ni doms need some level of Se to keep them exposed to enough external stimuli that they don't become detached from reality completely.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Not really. I've considered I might be an INTP, but in conversations I never feel I am speaking the same language as xNTPs. The descriptions of Ne that I read sound either foreign or scattered to me. As I understand it, Ne isn't as limited conceptually in how it connects things, so the thought process and ideas that get related to one another appear more dispersed. It's more obvious in an Ne dom but the examples I've heard about will go something like cheese -- dairy -- oh mice eat cheese too -- cats eat mice -- mammals -- isn't it funny that humans are related to monkeys?
> 
> That is why Ni is sometimes described as being more constrained or narrow (as is the case with all introverted functions compared to extroverted). It'd be more like cheese -- dairy -- yogurt -- calcium -- how much fat does a cheese need to have to offset the benefits of calcium? -- lowfat cheese probably doesn't taste very good -- oh that reminds me I need to buy milk today.
> 
> Ne went from cheese to human phylogeny, Ni went from cheese to another type of dairy. Ni is bound by its own mental contents, which is why Ni doms need some level of Se to keep them exposed to enough external stimuli that they don't become detached from reality completely.


I get what you're saying.
I feel the same about Ne when I read about it too. I've got a mate who's an INFP and I legit can't keep up.

For kicks though, I decided to brainstorm some words from cheese.

Smile, joker, batman, photo, milk, dairy, whiskers, wine, God of Wine, Third Eye Blind, Three Blind Mice, mouse, Three Muskateers, cow, pasture, farmers, barn, pickup truck, Ford F150, grazing.

I'll stop there, that's 20. Could have gone on forever though.

At a few points, I had to intentionally get myself back on track and force myself to think of "cheese" - otherwise, this is what happens.. smile, joker, batman, spiderman, marvel, DC, AC/DC, pub-rock music, cold chisel, hammer, hammertime, Vanilla Ice, Vanilla Coke, Cocaine, Eric Clapton, Tears In Heaven, Bryan Adams, Ryan Adams.. etc..

You can see where I've gone back to cheese.. "photo".. "mouse".. "cow"..


So writing this up looks more like Ne. But is it Ne? Or is it Ni? Confuses the shit out of me.

EDIT: I want to add that brainstorming in general is a learned skill for me, something I've developed over years from writing songs. I used to just think up themes and create kinda bubble maps from there with related words etc, eventually it sort of turned into lists and stuff.. over time I got better and quicker at it.
Wasn't born a brainstormer by any means.

EDIT 2: Just had another thought - interesting that my brainstorm went towards my own interest/hobby in music, pretty quickly.


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> I have started to think that the variance - at least among those who are dom or aux Ni users - is, perhaps, what defines Ni more than the narrative itself.


Then wouldn't Ni be a somewhat arbitrary function? I'm not sure if I'm wording this correctly, but what I mean is, then how can you be sure that Ni types are using the same process? By this definition, Ni would be more like a blank space for am unknown process, I think.



vhaydenlv said:


> Well if you're reading INFJ's descriptions of Ni, I can understand that it'll sound foreign to you especially since I use my Ni mostly with and for people.


I think you're right, and other people have pointed this out to me. I have a vague idea of how Ni works coupled with Te, but I'm not sure if it's right and how it applies to my thought-process exactly. Anyway, I guess the problem really is with my own understanding of it.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Mr. Castelo said:


> Then wouldn't Ni be a somewhat arbitrary function? I'm not sure if I'm wording this correctly, but what I mean is, then how can you be sure that Ni types are using the same process? By this definition, Ni would be more like a blank space for a unknown process, I think.


I meant it to be more tongue in cheek, but I am struck by the variance in the way different people describe it. It seems like a highly personal process and, perhaps, instead of describing the process itself, one is describing the manifestation of that process instead. For example, an Fi user describing Fi by describing their deep values or by describing the nuances of a particular emotion (rather than describing the process of creating a hierarchy of values). 

I stick by my original statement, though. I think that Ni is symbolic, like the language that makes up dreams. I experience it as suddenly something comes together and I become acutely aware of an insight which I didn't have before. I might be able to identify different pieces of the puzzle that brought about that thought, too, but maybe not all of it. It connects archetypes, both personal and universal, and finds patterns in both subtle and obvious forms. I don't see it as particularly magical or mystical, but it must be elusive to those who either don't use it or can't access it.


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Not really. I've considered I might be an INTP, but in conversations I never feel I am speaking the same language as xNTPs. The descriptions of Ne that I read sound either foreign or scattered to me. As I understand it, Ne isn't as limited conceptually in how it connects things, so the thought process and ideas that get related to one another appear more dispersed. It's more obvious in an Ne dom but the examples I've heard about will go something like cheese -- dairy -- oh mice eat cheese too -- cats eat mice -- mammals -- isn't it funny that humans are related to monkeys?
> 
> That is why Ni is sometimes described as being more constrained or narrow (as is the case with all introverted functions compared to extroverted). It'd be more like cheese -- dairy -- yogurt -- calcium -- how much fat does a cheese need to have to offset the benefits of calcium? -- lowfat cheese probably doesn't taste very good -- oh that reminds me I need to buy milk today.
> 
> Ne went from cheese to human phylogeny, Ni went from cheese to another type of dairy. Ni is bound by its own mental contents, which is why Ni doms need some level of Se to keep them exposed to enough external stimuli that they don't become detached from reality completely.


Some people say that Ni is an unconscious process with a conscious result, so I used to imagine that Ni was more like cheese --> I need to buy milk today, which I don't relate to, but I can see the process that you described in myself. Would you say that your Ni is unconscious, though? If so, how much?



Turi said:


> I get what you're saying.
> I feel the same about Ne when I read about it too. I've got a mate who's an INFP and I legit can't keep up.
> 
> For kicks though, I decided to brainstorm some words from cheese.
> ...


I'd say that anyone of any type can brainstorm, it just so happens that Ne types are more adept at this kind of thinking, and they probably do it without conscious effort for most of the time.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Something else that just occurred to me is that I think that Ni doms will look very reclusive as they reject/avoid/are confused by Se. These will be people who will create their own places, (for me at least), where they cannot be bothered by the outside world. This might be more true for INTJs than INFJs since Fe might be more likely to seek connection. This could also be a brightflashes thing and not an Ni thing, but I think that this might be at least indicative of INTJs.


----------



## Yenna (May 27, 2017)

I consider myself Ni-dominant, but i'm still not 100% sure if i get the idea of how Ni works correctly.

If the reality, consisted of well-known 'facts', people's experiences and sensory details was a frozen lake, and Ni was your tool, you would use it to dig a hole in the ice, to let the water get out- this water would be the truth, hidden under the ice. In the same time, the water would be "true" form of ice, right? And you are the only one who wants to get to the water- others prefer to skate on the ice, without even thinking about what's hidden under this thin layer, because lake's depth and magnitude just seems too abstract. 
And letting water cover the ice make you experience abstract realism- you comprehend reality, and you comprehend what's behind it, and a synthesis of those two things make you understand the truth. 

So, what do you think? Does it even make sense? xD


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

I feel like Ni users just clump together a bunch of poignant pieces of info in some nonsensical way and then make a grand connection between them in some profound way.


----------



## vhaydenlv (May 3, 2017)

Mr. Castelo said:


> I think you're right, and other people have pointed this out to me. I have a vague idea of how Ni works coupled with Te, but I'm not sure if it's right and how it applies to my thought-process exactly. Anyway, I guess the problem really is with my own understanding of it.


As I understand it, the difference between Ni-Fe and Ni-Te is that Ni-Fe will use sensory input to create an understanding of people and society where Ni-Te will use sensory input to create an understanding of how things work, or why. Both are puzzle-solvers but it's the difference between a researcher/investigator and a philosopher.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Some of the comments here are great insight into understanding Ni for someone who doesn't have it, although others I suspect, are merely copy/pasting definitions from the net (jus sayin' ^_^).

Introverted perceiving functions are definitely the hardest to explain. When I explain Si to NJ and SP types, they just look at me with a ''WTF?'' expression.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

King of Cups said:


> I feel like Ni users just clump together a bunch of poignant pieces of info in some nonsensical way and then make a grand connection between them in some profound way.



I guess that's why Ne users like you and I find more Ni users more fascinating than other types. It's because we come up with millions of insightful half baked ideas and we can sort of see that grand connections between them exist (especially in Doms like me) but can't quite keep our attention on them long enough bring them together. Im currently trying to write a book and I hit up against this problem all the time.

That's one reason I love Ni Doms perspectives.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Stevester said:


> Some of the comments here are great insight into understanding Ni for someone who doesn't have it, although others I suspect, are merely copy/pasting definitions from the net (jus sayin' ^_^).
> 
> Introverted perceiving functions are definitely the hardest to explain. When I explain Si to NJ and SP types, they just look at me with a ''WTF?'' expression.


Yeah I'm really glad I started this thread because I feel like I'm getting a much better picture when I hear people's perspectives on how they use it. It would be good to start an Si one as well to be honest. That's my inferior function so I really could do with getting to know it better!


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> Something else that just occurred to me is that I think that Ni doms will look very reclusive as they reject/avoid/are confused by Se. These will be people who will create their own places, (for me at least), where they cannot be bothered by the outside world. This might be more true for INTJs than INFJs since Fe might be more likely to seek connection. This could also be a brightflashes thing and not an Ni thing, but I think that this might be at least indicative of INTJs.



I for one don't repress my Se at all, and have a pretty healthy relationship with it.
I probably come across as an ISTP in person.

The thing about Se for me is it's kind of situational - I mean, questionnaires ask do I zone out when on walks in nature.. if I'm on my own, yeah sure. If I'm with people, not as much, depends on the conversation. If I'm with my daughter, there's absolutely no chance, I'm ISTP to the hilt - well aware of my surroundings, and I keep tabs on each and every little [email protected]#%er around to make sure my little princess is safe at all times.

I was just thinking about this stuff yesterday - not so much Se - but wondering whether some fellow INFJs (maybe INTJs too) are along these lines. I took my daughter out for a walk up the park and we stopped by a cafe and I got her a babycino (basically it's just frothed milk).
Anyway, the place was relatively busy, loads of places for us to sit - I choose the table furthest away from people, and positioned myself so I've got my eye on absolutely everyone there.


About being a recluse though - this is different to Se, for me. Maybe it's not. I don't know.
I am the most reclusive person I know. I am easily the most private person I know. I am incredibly difficult for people to get to know, and I get told this often.
When people add me to Facebook etc, they're always amazed to find I have almost nothing on there at all, and everything that is on there, isn't personal (band-related things.. like my guitars, music, or just advertising an upcoming gig).
There's nothing personal at all. I don't post up a single thing about my private life on Facebook, and on the rare occasions I have, it's been in closed or private Facebook groups, that none of my Facebook friends have access to.

I'm infinitely more open in internet forums than I am IRL.

But I'm not sure I agree with you on repressing Se.
I love jetskiing. Some basketball. Kicking the footy with friends.
I sometimes just get lost in the beauty of nature. Love going for walks.
I go outside during the fiercest of storms just to feel it. That shit makes me feel alive.

Yet at the same time, I'm not a part of any groups or teams at all.
So I mean, you might be on to something, I don't know.

Reading up on other Ni doms, INFJ and INTJ descriptors etc, I'm a bit of an anomaly in this regard.
I get way too excited when I'm able to show off my killer hand-eye co-ordination and accuracy with things, from the smallest stuff like using a knife to quickly shred through some veggies, all the way to drilling home some 3 pointers on the basketball court - love how it feels to nail some typical Se-style things, and ask my friends "WHO THE [email protected]#$ing KING!? THE DOUBLE CHAMP DOES WHATEVER THE [email protected]#$ HE WANTS"... >_>

Not to mention my preferred method of learning things is hands-on. 


Sorry for rambling so much. Your post made me think.
One one hand it's like, I agree, I'm hardcore recluse. On the other hand I'm like, I disagree, I love that shit.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

King of Cups said:


> I feel like Ni users just clump together a bunch of poignant pieces of info in some nonsensical way and then make a grand connection between them in some profound way.


That's actually not that far from the truth (although there's a lot of value judgments in there, so I'll just pass on those). 

Generally for Ni-doms, Se takes in the information, raw and without too much context and Ni tries to abstract the information as much as possible. For example: when you tell an Ni-dom that you're reading "_I Robot_" currently, they're hearing "I tend to read Science Fiction books" or "I'm interested in Isaac Asimov" (or if they're not into this sort of thing they might hear: "I'm a nerd")
Ni forgets the parts of the information that it can't fit into the current system or sets that information aside until it can. 

Now there's a link between you and science fiction, which might be a reason for a conversation or it might be a reason to avoid conversation. The Ni-dom might have completely forgotten what exact book you were reading, or even that it was about a book at all. 
On the other hand, if the conversation goes on from there, you might start talking about the laws of robotics, which can trigger all sorts of connections. 

In the end, the most important thing to remember is that it's not something that we 'do' exactly. It's just how our brains work. It's how we process information. Start from the most general interpretation and get more specific with each new piece of information that is added. (until we come at a point where something contradicts our mental model, which means the whole model needs to be reworked from the ground up of course)


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Mr. Castelo said:


> Some people say that Ni is an unconscious process with a conscious result, so I used to imagine that Ni was more like cheese --> I need to buy milk today, which I don't relate to, but I can see the process that you described in myself. Would you say that your Ni is unconscious, though? If so, how much?


I'm somewhat skeptical of the notion that Ni is an unconscious process. It is the only function for which that is said. So what does that make it, an outlier from the rest of the functions? the special snowflake function? 

If it is part of a set of functions then all the functions should ft into the framework in the same way. i.e. if 15 of them are conscious the 16th should be as well.... 

The thought of it being unconscious, I suspect stems more from Se. Since inferior functions, in MBTI framework ARE inherently unconscious (at least until they are developed, and even then they don't occupy conscious thought nearly as much as the rest of the stack). But this is the case with all types -- the inferior function is an unconscious feed to the dominant. Perhaps it got stuck to Ni because it's an introverted function and more difficult to describe, on top of the abstraction of intuition --thus Se mechanics (the far more obvious from an outside perspective) being mis-attributed to Ni? 

So I think the part of Ni that's unconscious is more the source of the information, which is Se. I am conscious about the whole (the concepts/ideas/conclusions) and not so much the parts/building blocks (the information that led to the conclusions). This is where it becomes problematic to explain how you know something, and leads to either myself or someone else not taking me seriously. ("I don't know, some experience happened but I don't remember how or why I concluded this, but something is making me really resist rejecting it." lol). 

A more concrete example of this is those dumb behavioral questions in job interviews, I absolutely despise them.. "How do you stay organized?" I don't fucking know, I just do, and people tell me I'm organized, okay?!" :laughing: I really have to give myself a good 5-10 minutes and sit there and write down a step by step process of how I stay organized, in order to really get it to sink into my head exactly how I do it. 

Basically I don't think I experience Ni itself as unconscious. I just don't know where the thought processes, ideas etc. have stemmed from most of the time. 

Also, if you look at neuroscience studies, you will see that part of the learning process is things becoming unconscious (and more difficult to retrieve consciously). Beginners use more conscious effort and breaking things down step-by-step, whereas once you get over the beginner hump you tend not to put so much thought into things. So that's not really an Ni thing. Maybe because Ni users tend to be so interested in acquiring information, applied knowledge and skills, they appear to do more of the "I already know this backwards and forwards and don't have to think about it so much".



King of Cups said:


> I feel like Ni users just clump together a bunch of poignant pieces of info in some nonsensical way and then make a grand connection between them in some profound way.


Interesting. I kind of view the nature of the world that way... it's just a bunch of nonsensical information and everything that appears to have an "order" to it is just a consequence (and projection) of the operations of the human mind being applied in the world... haha


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Here's a link for Ni:

maaarine

Awake, yet relaxed. Prefers to focus on one task or question at a time... able to remain in this state even when faced with the unknown.

I like this tidbit: 

_“Besides holistic problem-solving, the Ni types respond to tasks in a serious and predictable manner, though they lack an appetite for rote practice, which is key to burning new neural pathways to enjoy specialization. Thus, Ni types are generalists, not specialists. They are slow to commit to permanently hard-wiring their brain around a particular task.”_

I like it because it gives Si the recognition it deserves - Si is the function that enjoys rote practice, which burns new neural pathways to enjoy specialisation.


Although, I for one find it all a little confusing, considering I relate completely to that Ni link, yet also to this one for Ne, which the link even suggests is a complete contradiction:

maaarine



Kind of off-topic, but does anyone else think Si is ridiculously undervalued?
I also think some people might confuse Ni for Si because to me, they seem to be looking to achieve the same thing just in different ways, and I feel like in reality, when faced with a problem - I'd prefer someone with solid Si on my team rather than someone with solid Ni.

I just feel like the Si user would be able to think up a practical solution, quickly, based on what they know works, and what they're well-versed in, whereas someone with Ni higher up would just be lost and left for dead, if they couldn't think up a solution quick enough.

I feel like Ni users are the guys who get fired because they can't multitask very well, take too long to really get a grasp on things, and for whatever reason, myself included - seem to answer questions with another question, or answer them without actually answering them.

I mean that last paragraph is pretty specific, but I've pissed off a previous employee to no end, unintentionally, because he'd ask for something and I'd respond with where it wasn't.

I.e:

He'd ask "where's the ABC file?" and I'd respond with "it's not in here, did you want me to call them and ask for the XXXXX?"

This kind of response helps no one - it doesn't tell him where the ABC file is, and it assumes the reason he needs it (to find out about XXXXXX), and then forces him to answer a question that might not even be relevant - he might want the ABC file for something else entirely. The ABC file that he's stressing he can't find. :/


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Humans can't multitask well. Those that think they do tend to make more errors and have lower quality notions of productivity. Staging works far better but has to be planned out, which most people hate.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Turi said:


> Kind of off-topic, but does anyone else think Si is ridiculously undervalued?
> I also think some people might confuse Ni for Si because to me, they seem to be looking to achieve the same thing just in different ways, and I feel like in reality, when faced with a problem - I'd prefer someone with solid Si on my team rather than someone with solid Ni.
> 
> I just feel like the Si user would be able to think up a practical solution, quickly, based on what they know works, and what they're well-versed in, whereas someone with Ni higher up would just be lost and left for dead, if they couldn't think up a solution quick enough.
> ...


Si is definitely undervalued, but your examples seem a little extreme. My experience going through job training with an ISTJ (in which both of us were completely new to the discipline) was that a few weeks in I appeared to be the better employee because I could "triangulate" solutions to problems with relatively little background knowledge, but one year in he appeared to be the better employee because he had thoroughly charted all there was to know on the topic while I was in lala land. Put a really novel issue in front of us and the trend would reverse again - I could cook up a possible workaround quickly, he was slower if not lost because his previous experience proved to be of no use. The difference between Ni and Si in practice is essentially one of speed and flexibility vs. thoroughness and solidity. There's a sort of polarity to be observed between them.

Probably the weirdest thing I like about Si is that the work of Si-dom writers often has a really earthy, sensual, evocative quality to it. But that's neither here nor there I guess.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

baitedcrow said:


> Si is definitely undervalued, but your examples seem a little extreme. My experience going through job training with an ISTJ (in which both of us were completely new to the discipline) was that a few weeks in I appeared to be the better employee because I could "triangulate" solutions to problems with relatively little background knowledge, but one year in he appeared to be the better employee because he had thoroughly charted all there was to know on the topic while I was in lala land. Put a really novel issue in front of us and the trend would reverse again - I could cook up a possible workaround quickly, he was slower if not lost because his previous experience proved to be of no use. The difference between Ni and Si in practice is essentially one of speed and flexibility vs. thoroughness and solidity. There's a sort of polarity to be observed between them.
> 
> Probably the weirdest thing I like about Si is that the work of Si-dom writers often has a really earthy, sensual, evocative quality to it. But that's neither here nor there I guess.


Part of that for me is simply getting bored if I am doing too much of the same for a year (thus going off into lala land and getting too ADD to actually apply myself like I did at the beginning). I think the weakness there for Ni is it can't function optimally without basically constant intellectual stimulation.


----------



## martinkunev (Mar 23, 2017)

I can try.

One thing I believe it allows me do is recognize fallacies. When somebody says something stupid, often my intuition immediately tells me it doesn't make sense. This is before I had time to analize it logically with Te. When I do that, I can state reasons why it doesn't make sense. So sometimes I get the conclusion before I can identify the reasons. Of course, I'm not always right and reasons can sometimes change my mind.

I remember I read a while ago in the news that David Cameron wants to ban encryption. My immediate reaction was "Why are people governing countries such ignorant and clueless?". I did a mental analogy with a little child who doesn't care about reality and thinks if it says something with enough confidence, it will become true. This, I believe is the Ni.
Then Te kicks in. I ask myself the question "What's wrong with this idea - why it won't work?". I start coming up with reasons like how national laws cannot regulate a global network, how there is no fundamental difference between encrypted and non-encrypted traffic, etc.

How Ni works? From my experience and my intuitive understanding about encryption, I can often mentally recognize what is realistic and what not.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@martinkunev mate I'm not questioning your type, but what you've described in the above post is more along the lines of Ti and Ne.

Someone saying something stupid and you knowing it's stupid could be pretty much any function depending on the circumstances imo.

Linking David Cameron wanting to ban encryption to a little kid who doesn't care about reality sounds more like Ne to me.

The questions you ask yourself are all very much Ti.

From all of my research, none of what you said brings Ni to mind for me.

Take from this what you will, I'm not exactly the greatest dude out when it comes to function knowledge etc.

Just throwing it out there.


----------



## martinkunev (Mar 23, 2017)

Turi said:


> @martinkunev mate I'm not questioning your type, but what you've described in the above post is more along the lines of Ti and Ne.


I beg to disagree.

Ne is about investigating possibilities and hypotheses - like brainstorming. My thought process was more about subjective interpretation of his words and analyzing what they mean.

Ti usually employs deductive reasoning and tries to explain everything from basic principles. My thought process was more about challenging ideas and using objective facts as a base for reasoning.

I don't have enough knowledge to claim I'm right, but this is how I see the things.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Michael Pierce on youtube has a videoe describing the difference between Ni/Ne and it seems to make things really clear. It says it's along the lines of information becoming part of a whole picture subconsciously and certain things can trigger aspects of it but the user might not know where it comes from because it's lodged in a web of synthesis, so it's access isn't specific, it emerges from a subconscious source, hence the "Aha!" moments. it's like spaghetti, you don't eat it strand by strand, you eat all the noodles as a whole, even though they are still individual noodles, now try to imagine trying to find a specific strand of spaghetti in that mix. 

To me Ni would say all the strands come together to simply make pasta. While Ne will look at pasta and say, hey we can make pasta yarn, or spaghetti laces, or Ravioli Rapunzel. That's my simple Ne take on it.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

baitedcrow said:


> Si is definitely undervalued, but your examples seem a little extreme. My experience going through job training with an ISTJ (in which both of us were completely new to the discipline) was that a few weeks in I appeared to be the better employee because I could "triangulate" solutions to problems with relatively little background knowledge, but one year in he appeared to be the better employee because he had thoroughly charted all there was to know on the topic while I was in lala land. Put a really novel issue in front of us and the trend would reverse again - I could cook up a possible workaround quickly, he was slower if not lost because his previous experience proved to be of no use. The difference between Ni and Si in practice is essentially one of speed and flexibility vs. thoroughness and solidity. There's a sort of polarity to be observed between them.
> 
> Probably the weirdest thing I like about Si is that the work of Si-dom writers often has a really earthy, sensual, evocative quality to it. But that's neither here nor there I guess.


I've always just used Te to work around this sort of phenomenon. I retain large amounts of factual information relating to the structure of our organization and program. If I am confronted with a problem, any Ni conclusions can be feasibility-tested almost immediately this way. Granted this doesn't really work for me in any area other than work since I need a rock-solid Te foundation to replace the solidity that Si would provide and building up that kind of a foundation takes a great deal of work.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

PiT said:


> I've always just used Te to work around this sort of phenomenon. I retain large amounts of factual information relating to the structure of our organization and program. If I am confronted with a problem, any Ni conclusions can be feasibility-tested almost immediately this way. Granted this doesn't really work for me in any area other than work since I need a rock-solid Te foundation to replace the solidity that Si would provide and building up that kind of a foundation takes a great deal of work.


This doesn't really negate Si's potential advantage in many situations though. For one thing, ISTJs have Te too, so they may have both solid historical data and excellent command of it through Te. For another, Si/Ni and Te complement one another but don't do precisely the same things so one can't replace the function of the other. Te is kinda like a navigational tool: Si/Ni are about the destination/terrain.


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

It'd be really fun if someone asks Ni users a question or gives them a problem to theorize about, and then request we write our thought process out as it happens.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

baitedcrow said:


> This doesn't really negate Si's potential advantage in many situations though. For one thing, ISTJs have Te too, so they may have both solid historical data and excellent command of it through Te. For another, Si/Ni and Te complement one another but don't do precisely the same things so one can't replace the function of the other. Te is kinda like a navigational tool: Si/Ni are about the destination/terrain.


It's true, though my sense is that Te does a better job of covering for the weaknesses of Ni (as Te is more grounded) than it does Si. There may be nothing to it, but I have been pondering whether it makes sense for the functions to be split into grounded and abstract, that being distinct from objective and subjective. I must agree though that the combination of Si/Te is a useful asset. I have been blown away by the ability of ISTJs to deftly handle routine situations. Even when faced with the most routine task, it usually requires some conscious effort on my part to determine that I am actually doing it correctly.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Dscross said:


> H If my Ne gave you loads of new ideas to work with would that feed your Ni to make a theory?


No, that would make me choose the option that is most likely to succeed. Or it would fry my brain/ annoy me because when Ne-doms ramble, it sounds as if they are saying 1000 things at the same time. I cannot for the life of me remember what they said in a sequential order.


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

Words I would use to describe the Ni thought process:

Coalesced
Fatalistic
Invocative
Mysterious
Personal
Cryptic
Inertial
Patient
Hypnotic
Global
Transformative
Sacrificial
Trajectorial
Envisioning
Detached
Dreamlike
Singular
Inward
Uncommunicative


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

martinkunev said:


> I beg to disagree.
> 
> Ne is about investigating possibilities and hypotheses - like brainstorming. My thought process was more about subjective interpretation of his words and analyzing what they mean.
> 
> ...


Anyone can investigate hypotheses and possibilities, and anyone can brainstorm. Ne is about noticing patterns as they emerge, and being able to apply these patterns to various situations.

Which is what you did in the post I quoted you in.



ponpiri said:


> It'd be really fun if someone asks Ni users a question or gives them a problem to theorize about, and then request we write our thought process out as it happens.


Hit me?
I'm totally open to being proven to not be an Ni dom. I'll write up every part of my thought process.


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

Turi said:


> Hit me?
> I'm totally open to being proven to not be an Ni dom. I'll write up every part of my thought process.


Someone, meaning 'not me'. OP should start a separate thread. @Dscross


----------



## vhaydenlv (May 3, 2017)

Dscross said:


> If my Ne gave you loads of new ideas to work with would that feed your Ni to make a theory?


Not exactly. You might spark an interest about a specific topic in me, that I would look up afterwards, or tweak an already existing theory with new perspectives but it wouldn't create a new one on its own because Ne-doms rarely rambles about the same topic for hours on ends like Ni-doms tend to do. These days I love listening to an obvious INTP on YouTube lecturing about space and paradoxes. I also spent like the last 2-3 months talking about MBTI with my INFJ friend. This is how I usually build a "theory". I talk about it until everyone wants to strangle me with my own tongue.

Ne gives me ideas and Ni-Ti decides which one is the most likely to be true based on what I already know.


----------



## vhaydenlv (May 3, 2017)

FlaviaGemina said:


> No, *that would make me choose the option that is most likely to succeed*. Or it would fry my brain/annoy me because when Ne-doms ramble, it sounds as if they are saying 1000 things at the same time. I cannot for the life of me remember what they said in a sequential order.


That's very interesting because I answered the same part and what I said is: Ne gives me ideas and I decide which one is the most likely to be *true based on what I already know*. It's basically the difference between Ni-Te and Ni-Ti.

About Ne-doms rambling: where's the duck tape when you need it?
Which is hilarious in itself because my ENFP friend probably listen to me thinking the same thing.


----------



## Asura (Apr 2, 2016)

One thing we must remember is that Ni isn't "thinking" really, Ni is perceiving. One of the best people to explain Ni was Carl Jung himself.

In his descriptions he states that Ni is no different from Se/Si in that it is a form of perceiving. It is an aquisition of senses to the Ni dominate type. Just as the Se type experiences physical sensation the Ni type "experiences" imagery and ideas through Ni.

Thought processes formed around Ni are based on and work with the auxiliary judging function.


“So, the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself. Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive. To the one just as much as to the other, it is an aesthenic problem, a question of perception, a 'sensation'. In this way, the consciousness of his own bodily existence fades from the introverted intuitive's view, as does its effect upon others". - Carl Jung, Paychological Types


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Introvertedly. And philosophically.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

jetser said:


> In my opinion I never experience the present the way most people do. 1, Either I'm talking to someone and my mind is focusing on things I say (that looks like Ne, switching between different topics, considering different alternatives, usually just to neglect them all) or 2, I'm sitting alone by myself, waiting for "something".
> The last time I remember I was in the "here and now" was with the Mad Max movie. It's so intense and spectacular, it got me out of my head. But the minute it slowed down, I was back in my head again. lol


Fury Road? haha. I tend to prefer more intense genres for that reason, especially if they have a darker theme and something that typically ends up creating controversy in the mainstream. Thrillers, dramas, action, mystery/suspense or any combination of those (actually the combinations are often even better - like sci/fi-thriller or action-drama-suspense, etc). It's much easier to get out of my head with that kind of stuff. I don't care much for "action hero" type action though, it's more about "oh man is he gonna die?" rather than watching the good guy save people from the bad guy (yawn).


* *




btw, this is going off-topic but if you haven't seen it, the movie Sicario, which came out several months after Fury Road, is insane.


----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

Dscross said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm very new to this forum but I thought I'd start a thread to get the ball rolling with something I've always wanted to understand. I am an ENFP, so I understand Ne perfectly.
> 
> ...


Ni-dominants tend to think from multiple perspectives. As an Ni dominant, I can look at a situation and then analyze that situation from a few different angles. An Ni-dominant can easily place themselves into the mind of another person and figure out what the other person might be thinking. For example, if I want to catch a criminal, I just need to place myself into their shoes and imagine myself as a criminal and then from there I'll be able to figure out what they might be thinking and what their next move might be.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Schizoid said:


> For example, if I want to catch a criminal, I just need to place myself into their shoes and imagine myself as a criminal and then from there I'll be able to figure out what they might be thinking and what their next move might be.


I'm not sure I'd associate this with Ni.

It's like crime-catching 101. Surely the police etc get taught this on like their first day.
The criminals would be seeking to be a step ahead of this kind of thinking as well.

I believe this method would be closer to being one of the many approaches Ti would be employing in this situation.


----------



## ABodyOccupier (Aug 4, 2017)

Why has this not been done yet? 



ponpiri said:


> It'd be really fun if someone asks Ni users a question or gives them a problem to theorize about, and then request we write our thought process out as it happens.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

If Ne is the tip of the iceberg, then Ni is the 90% floating under the water.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Turi said:


> @Ksara Great post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks.

Interesting music.
For me it starts with a wide vast deserts made of red sut with grey clouds rolling, quite quickly like on a fast forward time lapse. A dark figure walks through the desert alone, and as the music picks up turns into black ravens flying away.

The scene moved to green hills, near an ocean and a light house ticking by. A young man wals through the green grass and he begins to dance with a woman. In a circular motion, opposite arms are holding as they circle around each other. The land scape changing to grey colour ouround them.

As the song progresses the sun begins to set big and red casting a redness across the ground and the man falls backwards arms out into the red dust. The woman reaching out and holding his hand as he falls but the red dust slips through her hands.

The scene moved to her laying on her back in the baron land, whilst the man is laying on his back in a green field as if the two are back to back.

I think that captures what I saw in my mins eye.



> Brilliant, yes, this is perfectly accurate.
> It's incredible to realise and begin to understand this isn't the ordinary way of life for everyone - can other people chip in here?
> I'd love to hear from dominant Se users because their experience should be vastly different - surely you experience this too?
> 
> ...


To help understand an Se perspective (from a Jungian perspective), Jung drew a parallel between how an Ni dom explores inner objects is similar to how Se domes explore external objects.


Pain, well it can depend. I can feel pain, and it hurts lol. Sometimes there is a mental image of what it's like, or what I'd like to do to relieve the pain, or its in parallel to the pain. Just a week ago I had a bad head ache and I was picturing a thick rubber band around my head being pulled tighter and tighter.

It's where one's attention falls. You can focus on feeling the pain. How uncomfotable it is. It's intensity. The sharpness or the achiness. Or the images that come to mine. Or perhaps place your attention elsewhere.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

jetser said:


> If Ne is the tip of the iceberg, then Ni is the 90% floating under the water.


Lol. That's a bit harsh on my dominant function.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Okay i don't have Ni. Too much deep


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> How do Ni dominants think (explained for an Ne dominant)?


Depends if they are Te/Fi or Fe/Ti. Ni in it self doesn't "think", it "perceives".


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

David Lynch nails it every time:


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

jetser said:


> If Ne is the tip of the iceberg, then Ni is the 90% floating under the water.


Whoa, that's a huge disservice to Ne. 

I could imagine something like: "If Ni is the roots of the tree, then Ne are the leaves" or something like that? 

The thing with Ne is that it's branching and ever-changing. Ne comes with new and exciting possibilities. "The tip of the iceberg" would imply that Ne is a single point. It's actually completely the opposite.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Drecon said:


> Whoa, that's a huge disservice to Ne.
> 
> I could imagine something like: "If Ni is the roots of the tree, then Ne are the leaves" or something like that?
> 
> The thing with Ne is that it's branching and ever-changing. Ne comes with new and exciting possibilities. "The tip of the iceberg" would imply that Ne is a single point. It's actually completely the opposite.


Yeah, the image probably wasn't the best. It is actually better how you describe it.
But it's true: Ni is lurking in the dark and when it comes to the surface, it will look like Ne. It will look like a sudden idea that Ne gets all the time - but it's not interconnected that Ni is.
That means that Ni and Ne is basically the same thing, observing from a different perspective. Ne is like looking above the water-level and spotting a lot of icebergs. While Ni is looking below the water and sees a huge chunk: but only Ni sees it nobody else. When it comes to the surface it will become visible to everyone.

(and I'm always surprised how sensitive people are to their functions, I always keep these things at a psychological distance and only speak of them in academic terms: disconnected from their emotional value and only interested in how they serve a human)


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

dominant Ni = system 1 fast "thinking", hunch, idea, notion, intuition

auxiliary Te = system 2 slow thinking, rationalization of fast Ni notion




> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow*
> 
> Two systems*
> 
> ...


----------



## forks (Dec 22, 2016)

Ni is knowing something without knowing why you know it. It's a hunch that gathers steam and overpowers rational thinking or reality. For me, I dream things and then later I see them come to pass. I used to think that it was premonition, but then I realized that my mind is working so far in advance and envisioning every possible outcome that I am just seeing one of them playing out in reality that was previously seen by some corner of my brain. It's a feeling of truth that is so deep and true that it can become troubling to day to day functioning if its not kept in check. I see so many negative possibilities as well as positive ones that my daily functioning in life feels like sailing a sailboat rather than living in the here and now. I am constantly in the present but with plans for the very next moment and even the next year. I know exactly what the winds are doing but I am constantly scanning the skies for signs of a storm or the horizon for a rogue wave, whilst simultaneously trying to enjoy the experience of sailing along and the beauty of the sea. People look at me and think I'm distant from them but really I simply find it hard to be in the moment. 

Ni is a connection of unrelated thoughts, sensory data, and perceived and learned knowledge. It's walking outside and knowing it's going to rain because my brain has stored 500 previous morning sensations and can tell by the way the trees limbs hang and the taste of the wind, even when the weatherman says it won't rain. It's looking at your lover and knowing they are being deceitful by the way they curl their lip while saying the word "fine" or the way their hand moves through the air, and at once trying to deny what you know because it hurts too much to know it. It is seeing lies and knowing too much. Ni is a blessing and a curse. It's knowing things that you don't really want to know sometimes and having to play along until they reach the inevitable conclusion. It's a feeling of "I told you so" that is super accurate... so accurate that you never doubt that when you say "I told you so" in your mind it will happen. 

My parents thought I was psychic as a child because I would run into the room saying I wanted to talk to grandma and the phone would ring. I just put the patterns together so well in my mind that I knew she would call. Ni is patterns of everything stored away in your brain. You put patterns together to know things that others never know. That is why we spend so much time studying and staring off into space. The more we absorb from our surroundings, the more accurate our Ni becomes. Spooky accurate for me. I know when my wife is lying to me by her mannerisms and simultaneously figure out her motivation for doing so. The same with my daughters. 

When you walk around knowing so much intuitively, actually talking takes a back seat. People find me awkward socially. I tend to get overwhelmed in groups because I am storing so much data that I don't have time to speak much. I listen always. I categorize and store conversations. I make mental databases on people that are subconscious and constantly evolving. I can look at a person and tell who I should spend more time with and who is not worth the time. People say this is arrogance, but I think it's just foreknowledge.

That is Ni.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

forks said:


> My parents thought I was psychic as a child because I would run into the room saying I wanted to talk to grandma and the phone would ring. I just put the patterns together so well in my mind that I knew she would call. Ni is patterns of everything stored away in your brain. You put patterns together to know things that others never know. That is why we spend so much time studying and staring off into space. The more we absorb from our surroundings, the more accurate our Ni becomes. Spooky accurate for me. I know when my wife is lying to me by her mannerisms and simultaneously figure out her motivation for doing so. The same with my daughters.


Haha this would happen so much to me and my INTJ ex, one of us would decide to call or text at the exact moment the other would think to communicate too. And it's funny cause it happened both ways, I would predict his texts like he did mine. Maybe his Ni was honing mine too :tongue: this rarely happens with my INTP boyfriend now, but with my ex it used to happen so much we would both freaked out at times xD


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

-


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Golden Candle said:


> oops


INxPs have Ni as our demonstrative function, which means we use it kinda unconsciously but not exactly, it's weak for us and tends to be used to serve our egos, "I told you so" etc, used more like a means to an end. It also helps us see the future more accurately, I believe, but I think it takes some conscious practice to achieve that, I know I'm trying to get better at it more and it's somewhat working. Or maybe you are not INFP xD


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> INxPs have Ni as our demonstrative function, which means we use it kinda unconsciously but not exactly, it's weak for us and tends to be used to serve our egos, "I told you so" etc, used more like a means to an end. It also helps us see the future more accurately, I believe, but I think it takes some conscious practice to achieve that, I know I'm trying to get better at it more and it's somewhat working. Or maybe you are not INFP xD


dang, you got in before i removed the quote XD sneaky sneaky!
i've come to the conclusion that I am indeed an INFP, with a developed Ni
thanks for the answer c:


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

forks said:


> Ni is knowing something without knowing why you know it. It's a hunch that gathers steam and overpowers rational thinking or reality. For me, I dream things and then later I see them come to pass. I used to think that it was premonition, but then I realized that my mind is working so far in advance and envisioning every possible outcome that I am just seeing one of them playing out in reality that was previously seen by some corner of my brain. It's a feeling of truth that is so deep and true that it can become troubling to day to day functioning if its not kept in check. I see so many negative possibilities as well as positive ones that my daily functioning in life feels like sailing a sailboat rather than living in the here and now. I am constantly in the present but with plans for the very next moment and even the next year. I know exactly what the winds are doing but I am constantly scanning the skies for signs of a storm or the horizon for a rogue wave, whilst simultaneously trying to enjoy the experience of sailing along and the beauty of the sea. People look at me and think I'm distant from them but really I simply find it hard to be in the moment.
> 
> Ni is a connection of unrelated thoughts, sensory data, and perceived and learned knowledge. It's walking outside and knowing it's going to rain because my brain has stored 500 previous morning sensations and can tell by the way the trees limbs hang and the taste of the wind, even when the weatherman says it won't rain. It's looking at your lover and knowing they are being deceitful by the way they curl their lip while saying the word "fine" or the way their hand moves through the air, and at once trying to deny what you know because it hurts too much to know it. It is seeing lies and knowing too much. Ni is a blessing and a curse. It's knowing things that you don't really want to know sometimes and having to play along until they reach the inevitable conclusion. It's a feeling of "I told you so" that is super accurate... so accurate that you never doubt that when you say "I told you so" in your mind it will happen.
> 
> ...


damn this really hit home for me. Ni metaphors galore in there as well, good stuff.


----------



## Liove (Sep 16, 2017)

Imagine a library.

5% of the book categories are what the INTJ is subjectively interested in.
95% of the book categories are uncategorized.

90% of the total books in that library is about the subjective 5% of the topics.
10% of the total books of that library is on about 95% of the topics.

That's Ni Dom.

=================================================

Ni in and of itself does nothing. It's just raw archived context, and that archive is vast. It's an adjacent function to Ni that makes it appear to 'act' or 'do' something. It was briefly touched upon in *this thread* until a Ti-Si loop fucked it up. 

In my case the adjacent function is Te. 

Imagine Te as a magnet that hovers above the library. While it hovers and moves around the library there are books that get plucked out of the archive. As it continues to move around, more books get plucked and added onto the previous books until some semblance of an image is formed. 



I can't seem to find an appropriate image for Ni-Te, but this is what Ni-Fe looks like:











The more context, or books you have in the archive, the clearer the final image is:


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Liove said:


> I can't seem to find an appropriate image for Ni-Te, but this is what Ni-Fe looks like:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So basically, Ni is sampling resolution, and its goal is to be as HD as possible?


----------



## Kitsune Love (Jul 8, 2014)

Siiiiiiiiiiiggghhhh.
Ok.

Yes. Both Ne and Ni are big picture focused and goal oriented. That's a given.

Let's make it easier to differentiate.
The definition of "Intuition" is the inherent understanding of what is known to be true.

By this definition, we can split it in to two categories.
Ne: Your outward understanding of what is true.
Ni: Your inward understanding of what is true.

How can we tell those apart?
Well the Ne user lives their life with a solid belief or simply knowledge that there are an infinite supply of doors that can be open to them. If they can think of it, they'll probably try to make it happen.

The Ni user is only focused on whatever is in their world.
While the Ne must know everything about anything, the Ni must know everything about themselves and whoever/whatever they bestow the great privilege of becoming part of their world.


----------



## hauntology (Feb 12, 2012)

(post deleted, but i can't delete, so this message instead.)


----------



## Liove (Sep 16, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> So basically, Ni is sampling resolution, and its goal is to be as HD as possible?


Ni doesn't do anything.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Liove said:


> Ni doesn't do anything.


It is driven by something though


----------



## Liove (Sep 16, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> It is driven by something though


Yes, an adjacent function.


----------



## ANAXEL (Feb 16, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> So basically, Ni is sampling resolution, and its goal is to be as HD as possible?


This is the best example that has happened in my life to describe it:
Me and my friend (INTJ) are writing a comic.

I asked him to make his character be inside a very weird mall, filled with art and other abstract objects and regular mall things, and for him to write down the character's thoughts as he silently walks through all of it (as he would do so in real life).

Now, here's where my *Ne* goes: I picture several squares with the character and a text bubble on top of him, walking through several scenarios and commenting on them, reacting to them in several squares. I see several shots of him seeing things from multiple angles.
The subject is used as a tool to explore something.
In my experience, Ne has always looked at something and go "Hey, this XX could be used for XX and then all of these XX things would happen"

Now, where does his* Ni* go?: He proceeds to start a new page and draw a huge square that covers pretty much the whole page and he focuses on ONE angle, ONE shot of his character perceiving the million weird things found at the bizarre mall. That really amused me, since I am all into cognitive function behavior, and Ni had always been theoretical until I saw him do that.
Ni appears to grab several grandiose elements of a concept and adhere them to the subject.

*Ni* uses many things to expand on one thing.
*Ne *uses one thing to expand on many things.

Now, I did like @Liove analogy, but I can't help but to think that it would fit much better with Si than with Ni.


----------



## Liove (Sep 16, 2017)

ANAXEL said:


> Now, I did like @Liove analogy, but I can't help but to think that it would fit much better with Si than with Ni.


How?


----------



## ANAXEL (Feb 16, 2017)

Liove said:


> How?


I myself probably misinterpreted it, but what I got from it was that the perception was rather selective after it'd scan through the vast amount of subjects. As some of them were uncategorized, they'd be kept in storage for them to be used later, but I guessed I assumed the subjects of no interested remained irrelevant. As if the perception was picky, not collective, so I thought it's match with Si dom, which zooms in on something and intensifies whatever it is it senses subjectively, but only 5% of what is available to perceive.
My confusion probably was found in the fact that both Ni and Si are highly subjective.

I also can't read.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ANAXEL said:


> I myself probably misinterpreted it, but what I got from it was that the perception was rather selective after it'd scan through the vast amount of subjects. As some of them were uncategorized, they'd be kept in storage for them to be used later, but I guessed I assumed the subjects of no interested remained irrelevant. As if the perception was picky, not collective, so I thought it's match with Si dom, which zooms in on something and intensifies whatever it is it senses subjectively, but only 5% of what is available to perceive.
> My confusion probably was found in the fact that both Ni and Si are highly subjective.
> 
> I also can't read.


Perceiving functions can't be picky by definition, as that's under the realm of judging (filtering/discriminating; also by definition). But what you said about adhering elements of different concepts, I think that's a part of it too. It's the notion of fitting everything into a larger picture. Ni I believe is also similar to the concept of synthetic statements in philosophy, espsecially when contrasting Ne/Ti to Te/Ni (not necessarily in that order: 

"*Analytic propositions are true by virtue of their meaning, while synthetic propositions are true by how their meaning relates to the world". *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction









The picture analogy is interesting though. I've considered Ni to be like digital sampling (or maybe, the idea of sampling in general?) in the sense that the more samples it has the better off it is, and it can approach a conclusion or larger idea but never with 100% certainty, the same way sampling audio or visual information will never be the same as the analog version and there is a sense of losing its essence (though from a technical perspective, I don't know that an engineer would agree with that idea), especially with low-res sampling.


----------



## Liove (Sep 16, 2017)

ANAXEL said:


> what I got from it was that the perception was rather selective after it'd scan through the vast amount of subjects. As some of them were uncategorized, they'd be kept in storage for them to be used later, but I guessed I assumed the subjects of no interested remained irrelevant. As if the perception was picky, not collective
> 
> so I thought it's match with Si dom, which zooms in on something and intensifies whatever it is it senses subjectively, but only 5% of what is available to perceive. My confusion probably was found in the fact that both Ni and Si are highly subjective.


Si-dom is not picky at all. 

An Si-dom's motivation is primarily their *sense of familiarity*.

To keep with the library analogy, an Si-dom's conclusion does not depend on the context that it's been given. It depends on the familiarity of the conclusion. Let's say for example the first conclusion an Si-dom makes is the 1st image above, it will then continue to use the same method and the same conclusion ad-infinitum until the method and conclusion become familiar. 

If an Ni-dom comes in and adds more context to the original conclusion (image 1) as a way to improve upon or modify it to get a better, more accurate conclusion (image 2), the Si-dom will reject the 2nd conclusion (image 2) and will insist upon and reinstate what it has become familiar with (image 1). This is how Ni-dom and Si-dom are immensely different from each other. Ni-dom is constantly seeking to add, improve upon, and change currently existing conclusions. Si-dom is constantly seeking to reinstate everything that is familiar and rejects everything 'new'.


----------



## ANAXEL (Feb 16, 2017)

Liove said:


> Si-dom is not picky at all.
> 
> An Si-dom's motivation is primarily their *sense of familiarity*.
> 
> ...


Thank you so much for expanding on that.
It ends up it's much better to contrast Ni against Si for me rather than contrasting it with Ne. Sorry about not getting the analogy earlier, it makes much more sense to me now.
@ninjahitsawall, I had not heard of Synthetic vs Analytic statements before. I'm seeing Ni vs Ti here. Thank you for bringing that up.

I think it was Liove that brought up (in some harmony with his statement that "Ni does nothing") that Ni is more reactive to external stimuli? The comparison to a Synthetic statement seems to fit that perfectly. It seems like observations of the outside world help it get going. It's sequential and seems to depend on patterns. Once it detects one, it gets going almost infinitely, and when that's not the case, it's at rest?
I'm freaking fascinated right now, is that how it works or am I still missing it?


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Dscross said:


> Please can someone explain it to me in language an ENFP would understand. If you need to use your secondary functions to explain as well that's ok.


For me as ENFP, my currently best understanding about Ni is the following. It uses input ideas and concepts as a "cloud" and then days, weeks or sometimes even months later (may also depend on the complexity of initial topic) they suddenly "pop" in their heads as moments of realizations about whole core ideas without knowing exactly from where it come from. 

It was still pretty difficult for me to imagine this as Ne user but closest things to Ni in my opinion are the aha!-moments or sudden realizations of something one could experience for example while their brain is under psychedelic effects. And one of the most important about that is it's rather subconcious process not a logical progression towards core idea (that would be Ti already I guess).


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

tarmonk said:


> For me as ENFP, my currently best understanding about Ni is the following. It uses input ideas and concepts as a "cloud" and then days, weeks or sometimes even months later (may also depend on the complexity of initial topic) they suddenly "pop" in their heads as moments of realizations about whole core ideas without knowing exactly from where it come from.
> 
> It was still pretty difficult for me to imagine this as Ne user but closest things to Ni in my opinion are the aha!-moments or sudden realizations of something one could experience for example while their brain is under psychedelic effects. And one of the most important about that is it's rather subconcious process not a logical progression towards core idea (that would be Ti already I guess).


Yes. It takes a lot of - mostly subconcious - information and leads to one realization or idea.
This is the opposite of what Ne is. Which takes one thing and creates many.
But aha! moments are somewhat oversimplified and at the same time mystified. Everyone has aha moments but not for the same reason.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

jetser said:


> aha! moments are somewhat oversimplified and at the same time mystified. Everyone has aha moments but not for the same reason.


Sure, agreed. It's just the best way I can currently imagine Ni for myself as it's not my natural preferred pattern  For me to make things work I just have to "play the tape of other person's mind" in my head to imagine how it could be different from my most preferred functions.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

tarmonk said:


> Sure, agreed. It's just the best way I can currently imagine Ni for myself as it's not my natural preferred pattern  For me to make things work I just have to "play the tape of other person's mind" in my head to imagine how it could be different from my most preferred functions.


It's a fun tape to play


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

This is the best desciption of Ne vs Ni that I've read so far.

_Ne forms/finds connections between things in an outward way. Connecting the dots between real, tangible things. It sees a balloon and tries to determine what it's made of, what it's surface tension is, and what type of gas is inside, it may then spread out and start thinking of how the rubber it's made of was made, and the state of that industry and then carry on to how that industry is affecting others. It may consider that the helium in the balloon is a waste because of how low the world's helium reserves are becoming and lament about how we shouldn't be wasting something so valuable on a simple balloon.

Ni does the same thing, forming connections, but the connections are between it's own subjective impressions and interpretations of things. It looks at the balloon and remembers a movie by Alfred Hitchcock where the whole movie was black and white except for a red balloon. It connects that to the first time it saw the movie and who it's friends were back then and how it led them to where they are now. It starts thinking about how cool it would be to make a movie that was like the Hitchcock one it saw before, and how they could use the style of only coloring certain things while leaving everything else black and white to control the mood and to hilight certain moments and feelings in the narrative. It remembers that one of those friends it saw that old movie with is in art school right now and calls them up to talk about this idea.

It's the difference between intangible, personal connections and tangible, real world connections. When Ni calls up their friend it starts with "so I just saw this balloon and it got me thinking..." and it ends with "wouldn't that be a cool movie?!" Ne calls up it's friend with the same opener, but it ends up with "we should start a petition to conserve what little helium we have left so it can be used for science!"_

from reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/intj/comments/7xt3dq/please_explain_introverted_intuition_intj/

(the first one is so Steve Jobs)


----------



## BugFolk (Nov 4, 2017)

Thank you. I guess it really is Ni that I use, not Ne. I used to think my mind jumps around, but it is kind of like a tree. I'll find a key interest and then research, learn everything there is to know on a topic related to my interest, and then imagine stuff going from there.

I imagine bug people, can see their world in my head. The map of their world, each nest in their world. Zoom into a few characters and then animate a scene in my head. To get the characters accurate I start dabbing into psychology and researching stuff related to psychology. I apply what I learn to my characters, make up their personalities. I also research different religions and then take bits and pieces to create their beliefs. I'll study what interests me and then find some way to build upon it. 

The next branch of the tree: I do life casting with flowers and leaves. I never had any knowledge or directions in how to do this. Just some thought pattern guiding me along, telling me to try this and try that until I get a result. When I paint that is what happens. I see the visual of the finished thing and then as I go along there's a "voice" guiding me along, telling me each step of the way as if it has been done already. I see in my head kind of an abstract timeline. The guide will suggest what paint tubes to pick up and try.

When I am writing, the character's voices are speaking in my head and the narrator is telling me what to write. It just flows naturally when it happens. I'll see the scene as if I'm watching an animated movie.


----------



## Master_Star (Jan 16, 2018)

Ni foresees implications, transformations and likely effects. Ni foresees what's going to happened. Ni are forecasters.


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

In short:


Introverted Intuition is all about noticing *the timing of events*, and the movements / transitions / transformations between those events, rather than the events themselves. It encourages a convergent, fatalistic, serious and "of the moment" sort of thinking. Jung's own idea of Synchronicity or "meaningful coincidences" is a good example of this. As an introverted process, it is not shared, so what you notice can be difficult to communicate.


Extroverted Intuition is all about noticing *the many possibilities available* in a situation, pointing them out to others, and then encouraging exploration of them. It encourages a scatterbrained, distracting, witty and buoyant way of thinking 
. As an extroverted process, it is shared, so what you notice is easy to communicate.


----------



## BugFolk (Nov 4, 2017)

Master_Star said:


> Ni foresees implications, transformations and likely effects. Ni foresees what's going to happened. Ni are forecasters.


Does that translate to animation? I can look at just about any object and visualize it in motion if I wanted to. (it can be tiring depending on how complex, but I can do it)
I can also "overlay" look at an object and visualize a "future" or "past" version of it.

A real life example: I was on our light rail system some days ago and heard the driver's radio mention a traffic accident and the location of the accident. Knowing the location I could generate the scene in my head and roughly tell if or when the train would be forced to either stop, change rails, or be delayed.

Since the stop affected was far ahead of the stop I needed, I wasn't concerned. But if I needed to pass that stop, I had a mental visual of me possibly having to get off the train and board another or wait for a bus.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

You know, I keep revisiting this wanting to add something, but this is all I got.

For me at least, Ni isn't subconscious, semiconscious, or unconscious it's entirely conscious. It's my default state.

This is what Ni looks like physically: Me, sitting in a chair, holding a book in my lap staring off into space with blank eyes. 

This is what I do when interrupted while "Ni-ing": gasp, startle response, don't talk; I'm thinking, impatience, reminding not to interrupt

This is what I do while "Ni-ing": letting my mind wander without forming any conclusions about anything. Digesting all the information I've just reviewed and allowing it to get all mixed up in my mind for my own personal amusement.

I'm interested in Yersinia Pestis (plague, all three strains). So, I read about it, watch everything I can about it, read subjective examples of it, read objective facts about it. All the while, I try not to make any conclusions at all. I just take all that information and let it get all mixed together in my mind and suddenly come up with - Hey, maybe bacteriophages (or biophages) would be a better way to treat new cases of Y. Pestis because 1, we know it has evolved 2, there have been some modern cases that showed antibiotic resistance and 3, my dad was a microbiologist and did some research into alternative forms of treating infection outside of antibiotics.

There is absolutely NOTHING magical about this in the slightest. And it's definitely not subconscious. I'm very aware of it when I'm doing it.

It's just throwing all the information I can carry into a room and then sifting it out, organizing it in as many ways as I can, messing it up and then reorganizing it until new ideas come up. Then, my Te takes over and starts to look at whether or not these ideas could be applied in the real world. (So, I guess my next step is to get a grant researching Y. Pestis lol).


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

brightflashes said:


> You know, I keep revisiting this wanting to add something, but this is all I got.
> 
> For me at least, Ni isn't subconscious, semiconscious, or unconscious it's entirely conscious. It's my default state.
> 
> ...


Yeah, sick of all subconscious bull. It's definitely real and very conscious.


----------



## Sugarpot (Dec 30, 2017)

It's like we instantaneously "know" abstractly the big picture and the goal (like a flash in the mind that is actually a movie of an entire plan in action instead of a static picture). And that's why we don't wander off around too much non-realistic ideas while picturing the details, we stick to the factual data that is entrusted subconsciously in our minds. And always use that to better picture whatever is going on. Ne is more expressive with the details so its easier to hear one talking about what his Ne is telling. But not with Ni, Ni "just knows" and doesn't have enough details to explain the logical reasons behind it... only after time we can determine what exactly is the goal enough to tell other people and explain about it, while that it remains just as a "feeling towards" like a mysterious driving force.


----------



## BugFolk (Nov 4, 2017)

jetser said:


> Yeah, sick of all subconscious bull. It's definitely real and very conscious.


I notice there's different levels of conscious. There's the very conscious generating images and thinking in animations and movies (leaves me kind of detached and less able to pay attention to people (Fe) or surroundings (se) and there's moderate where it's just a lot of verbal thoughts flowing through my head (easier to focus on Fe and Se than the previous), to letting it go in passive mode.

"Passive mode" is just letting it go mostly silent, not conjure up images or try to reign in coherent thought strings, but focus on background surroundings and people. I notice this most difficult for me. (it does not want to shut off at all) but when it is powered down I become aware of my surroundings to a degree and notice a better read on people's emotions and can carry better conversations. 

But as soon as I want to go back into plotting stuff to write I go back into stage 1 (full in almost lucid dream like focus) and being zoned out around me.

Painting: A combination of level 2-3. Passive mode allows me to focus on what I am doing but will still guide me along the process and show me flashes of what I am trying to achieve.


----------



## lungdealer (Feb 15, 2018)

brightflashes said:


> I read your post. Is Ni for you like dream symbols, but applied to the world around you? Or, the act of connecting certain things with universal archetypes? I'm just interested in you elaborating if there's anything to elaborate on.


yes.. Ni does attach symbols to everything it can understand. But i can't say for Ni-Te. Possibly works the same way.. can't say for sure. 
But Ni can be seen as one of the empty functions... like Fi. It doesn't think much, until the moment comes to think about it and then you get into action. Then words just seem to be springing out the mouth and finger chatter and you're left wondering where all of that came from. Then you look into the past and realize you've said what you've said as a matter of "Si" which isn't really a Si.

All of it is just a blurr though. Until it can see itself through it's Se.. Ni will never understand.


----------



## lungdealer (Feb 15, 2018)

brightflashes said:


> You know, I keep revisiting this wanting to add something, but this is all I got.
> 
> For me at least, Ni isn't subconscious, semiconscious, or unconscious it's entirely conscious. It's my default state.
> 
> ...


i figured that the time it takes to hit it, the stronger it is. simple facts you can get from anywhere.. like wanting to eat some cheese for a very long time, and then just having it in your mouth will be satisfying beyond belief.

but i have a feeling, the more you don't access your Ni (the silent gaze), the more it charges itself. And then, when you use it, it'll be so strong you'll know exactly what you were looking for.


----------



## Liove (Sep 16, 2017)

lungdealer said:


> Until it can see itself through it's Se... Ni will never understand.


Not true.

Ni is not dependent on elements from the natural world as its catalyst. It also applies to immaterial abstracts such as Math, Philosophy, Democracy, etc.





lungdealer said:


> Ni can be seen as one of the empty functions... like Fi.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Mr Castelo said:


> I'm currently debating with myself whether or not I really use this function as my dominant one. It seems to me that everyone has a different meaning and use of it. This probably happens with most cognitive functions, but the difference between descriptions of Ni seems bigger to me, which makes it harder for me to identify this function within myself as I can relate to some descriptions, but not to others... It's a highly abstract function, hard to put on concrete terms, so I suppose everyone has different interpretations about how it works.


It probably works differently for different people bc its used in conjunction with other functions.
INTJ Ni-Te works differently than INFJ Ni-Ti.
Also, some people here probably dont know what it is and think they do.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Dscross said:


> However, I've read a lot about Ni but I still can't quite envision how it works in practice. The way I understand it, it *takes ideas and turns them into concrete theories.* But can an Ni dominant give me a real life example of how they do this? If my Ne gave you loads of new ideas to work with would that feed your Ni to make a theory?
> Please can someone explain it to me in language an ENFP would understand. If you need to use your secondary functions to explain as well that's ok.



I'm going to add this to plug the following in before getting to the example because it all intertwines...


> Ni - Introverted Intuiting
> Introverted iNtuiting involves* synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory,* which takes understanding to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us. A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden “Aha!” or “That’s it!” The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future. Using this process, we might rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict, enlighten, or transform. We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs. This process can involve working out complex concepts or systems of thinking or conceiving of symbolic or novel ways to understand things that are universal. *It can lead to creating transcendent experiences or solutions.*
> Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes



Since I'm an INFJ, my examples are more human / behavior oriented.
*Example: "Comfort zones that aren't ventured out of can become quite uncomfortable, can't they?"*
*(I came up with this)*
So it may start as seeing someone who considers themselves "socially awkward" but stays within their comfort zone. Then I notice how uncomfortable that actually is, how much distress it actually causes them. Then I have an _"Aha!"_ or _"That's it!"_ moment, _"comfort zones are actually uncomfortable! It's more comfortable to just push yourself outside of the comfort zone until it becomes comfortable, otherwise the discomfort only continues!"_ *This gives me an alternate perspective (Ni = deals with perspectives)*: _"so staying in that comfort zone is actually LESS comfortable than pushing yourself out of it..."_at which point I may begin to wonder why they're even called "comfort zones" in the first place because really they have more in common with restraint from comfort than actual comfort. *This new perspective can be insanely motivating to move forward and fix the thing, since now you see you're actually on the more difficult path already than the alternative, and that the "greater difficulty" of stepping out of the comfort zone is only an illusion of greater difficulty because it's unfamiliar. (thus, so-called "transcendent experiences or solutions"...perspective is half the battle)
*I think this is why INFJs can be inspiring counselors...things like this: it makes you see it as harder to keep doing what you're doing than to make progress...but if the seed isn't planted in the hearts of those who desire to grow, they never will. It's encouraging when people do listen.



I also will take that idea and ruminate, consider multiple angles, questioning the conclusion, "but what if?" I look for the exceptions, grey areas, the 1%, refine for accuracy (is this Ti?), and I might say, _"CAN be uncomfortable"_ to ensure accuracy in case I miss some situation where it's not applicable. (_Does this apply to all comfort zones, or are there exceptions? If there are exceptions, what are they?_) It's a process which expands into possible connections, and for me it's highly visual. It's literally a 3D mind map in my head most of the time. It's forward-moving though, and its end goal is an accurate conclusion.













​
The "expansion/possibilities" part is conscious effort for me. Here's a fragment of a poem I wrote that pertains to it:
"...And extrapolation's tricking
Me to think the end is fitting
But there's something I'm omitting:
What if?"
Extrapolation = the "math," the prediction, Ni
What if = examine alternate possibilities (Is this Ne?) to enhance accuracy.
This expansion = where information gathering; research, debate, discussion, inquiring of others, listening, etc comes in as well.
Some INFJs jump to premature conclusions and have unsound logic without the "expansion into more possibilities" part of the process, but then they shift from conclusion to conclusion more. I prefer a more consistent alternative, even at the expense of a bit of stress sometimes.
Think of it like a water hose, it's got to stay flowing but if you let it bubble up for a second it comes out a little stronger once you let it go, after putting a bit of stress on the hose for a moment (bad example, but it works)...on the other hand, too much bubbling up (with possibilities) and the inability to ever come out, and it's going to leak or burst, that's what happens in my head. My head essentially feels like it's going to explode and I feel overwhelmed or stressed, and at that point I usually try to narrow it down to more specific details.
It's really more of a back and forth, ruminating, swallowing and regurgitating, like a cow with its four stomachs.* Of course, this is probably now WAY into more functions than Ni, but it's still within the realm of your question about **how the process of turning ideas or impressions into theories works.
**Subjectively......for me. Can you other Ni-Doms relate?*


As for this....


> We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs.


This is essentially extrapolating or what I refer to as, "math with human behaviors"

And this.......


> If my Ne gave you loads of new ideas to work with would that feed your Ni to make a theory?


It's possible, but too much untempered Ne would probably be a huge stressor for INFJs at least, especially when it gets into unrealistic things. INFJs don't have the tolerance for things that are overly far-fetched. Here's an excerpt from a site, they phrase it better:



> ..." prefers to consider and talk about only the most probable ones".....and......."When somebody is voicing alternatives that to him sound improbable and unlikely to happen, he is either dismissive or irritated by such information."
> Socionics - the16types.info - Information Elements: Descriptions by Functions





*Please pardon any errors or inaccuracies, this was partly to help me to learn, too...which I'm still doing...*


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)




----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

@Turi .... what? Why?


----------



## foamonthewaves (Jun 12, 2012)

Jungian intuition is literally imagination. Ni draws from the internal world of personal experience, symbols, and meanings to imagine what could be, what should be etc.

What is magical about this is how often it can be right if Ni is properly understood and the Ni dom's other functions are properly developed. 

Similarly, Ne is also imagination but it is imagination about the external world. It too can have this "magical" quality to it when it is used properly in tandem with its other functions.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

RGBCMYK said:


> @Turi .... what? Why?


If you'll look at the diagrams you posted you can apply the same idea - sees the losers, picks the winner from the unconscious.
You could also look at it as somebody winging their way through life and still managing to succeed thanks to what feels more like the universe guiding their way and less like through hard-work and determination.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Turi said:


> If you'll look at the diagrams you posted you can apply the same idea - sees the losers, picks the winner from the unconscious.
> You could also look at it as somebody winging their way through life and still managing to succeed thanks to what feels more like the universe guiding their way and less like through hard-work and determination.


LOL Nobody would have derived that from that.

Also, that's sad :sad:

Does my novel resonate with you at all beyond what you mentioned? I'm having doubts and wondering if it's too subjective.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

RGBCMYK said:


> snip


Thanks for that. This was a good detailed example. I think that gives me a much better understanding of the mindset.

All I'd say from my point of view, is that I believe that throwaway comment/interpretation about Ne is a bit harsh. Lol. I don't feel like ideas generated via Ne are necessarily (or even usually) far fetched (not for me anyway). Most of the ideas are realistic, we just tend to get overly enthusiastic or excited about them. We then struggle to actually follow through on the majority when our inspiration wanes.

I'm very good at starting projects or getting invested mentally in a topic. My Ne will usually draw me to something else a few days later. Takes a lot of mental discipline to use our ideas properly as an Ne dom. That doesn't mean we're beyond concentration though, it just takes willpower. How any of this interacts with Ni is anyone's guess.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Dscross said:


> Thanks for that. This was a good detailed example. I think that gives me a much better understanding of the mindset.
> 
> All I'd say from my point of view, is that I believe that throwaway comment/interpretation about Ne is a bit harsh. Lol. I don't feel like ideas generated via Ne are necessarily (or even usually) far fetched (not for me anyway). Most of the ideas are realistic, we just tend to get overly enthusiastic or excited about them. We then struggle to actually follow through on the majority when our inspiration wanes.
> 
> I'm very good at starting projects or getting invested mentally in a topic. My Ne will usually draw me to something else a few days later. Takes a lot of mental discipline to use our ideas properly as an Ne dom. That doesn't mean we're beyond concentration though, it just takes willpower. How any of this interacts with Ni is anyone's guess.


Thanks.
Sorry, I didnt mean it in a harsh way at all...I am basing that statement off of ENTP descriptions, and from the angle of not being Ne Dom...to elaborate...one test I took when I was mistyped as an INTP and thought I might be an ENTP had a question about whether I was ...Ti dom basically, or would rather discuss what would happen if everyone pointed lasers at the moon at the same time. One friend who is ENFP wanted to experiment mixing acids just to see what would happen when she was a kid, another thread on here was "could robots turn and take over" or something, but my response was that they only do what they're programmed to, they'd have to be programmed to do that, or be programmed to program themselves and download one made by man, or have some statistically improbable accident, do you see what i mean? This was w an ENxP. I love ENTPs, don't get me wrong, I could completely see myself being with one someday. I love ENFPs too, one of my closest friends is the ENFP mentioned above w/ the acids. Sometimes though it's like she's tossing out ideas, regardless of how improbable--like a baseball machine, and I'm a batter. It's actually extremely fun and she makes me think, I LOVE this. She's never gotten too unreasonable or improbable, and there's a definite underlying pattern of her shooting things out and me narrowing in on answers, reasoning and analyzing through things, asking questions to elaborate, offering my own insights, although a lot of times I just say "true, that's possible." On the other hand, that conversation on PerC about whether robots could take over the planet was "out there" or "unreasonable" in my opinion, and it irritated me a lot even though I didn't show it so I just left the thread. A conversation about what might happen if everyone shot at the moon with lasers at the same time would also be irritating.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

RGBCMYK said:


> Thanks.
> Sorry, I didnt mean it in a harsh way at all...I am basing that statement off of ENTP descriptions, and from the angle of not being Ne Dom...to elaborate...one test I took when I was mistyped as an INTP and thought I might be an ENTP had a question about whether I was ...Ti dom basically, or would rather discuss what would happen if everyone pointed lasers at the moon at the same time. One friend who is ENFP wanted to experiment mixing acids just to see what would happen when she was a kid, another thread on here was "could robots turn and take over" or something, but my response was that they only do what they're programmed to, they'd have to be programmed to do that, or be programmed to program themselves and download one made by man, or have some statistically improbable accident, do you see what i mean? This was w an ENxP. I love ENTPs, don't get me wrong, I could completely see myself being with one someday. I love ENFPs too, one of my closest friends is the ENFP mentioned above w/ the acids. Sometimes though it's like she's tossing out ideas, regardless of how improbable--like a baseball machine, and I'm a batter. It's actually extremely fun and she makes me think, I LOVE this. She's never gotten too unreasonable or improbable, and there's a definite underlying pattern of her shooting things out and me narrowing in on answers, reasoning and analyzing through things, asking questions to elaborate, offering my own insights, although a lot of times I just say "true, that's possible." On the other hand, that conversation on PerC about whether robots could take over the planet was "out there" or "unreasonable" in my opinion, and it irritated me a lot even though I didn't show it so I just left the thread. A conversation about what might happen if everyone shot at the moon with lasers at the same time would also be irritating.


Hmmm, I see what you mean now. I tend to view those kinds of 'what if' conversations less as ideas and more as hypothetical scenarios to try and get to know the other person. Not sure if it's related to Ne or if it's just a me thing, but I sometimes tend to ask more things like 'what would you do if...' sort of questions.

Maybe, an ENTP would be more likely to ask a 'what if'' question about something impersonal, like the robot future thing, whereas an ENFP would be more likely to ask a personal ludicrous question like 'what's the first thing you would you do if you could fly' or something like that.

I believe that, for me at least, the underlying principle with that type of conversation is less about the actual sharing of ideas (which I prefer tbh) and more about discovering more about other people to see how they think and how they would react in certain situations. I feel like it's all about seeing the response rather than actually coming to conclusion on those specific types of questions.

In addition, there are times where I will just debate on each side of the argument just so I can get all sides covered. I can see that being a bit annoying to some people who aren't used to it maybe?

This is all just speculation though. What do you think?


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

The Principles of Cognitive Function Theory @MBTI-notes - Type Theory

These questions are spot on I think.
If you answer most of these 'yes' then chances are you're Ni-dom.

"To determine whether Ni is your dominant function, ask yourself how you react to situations (most of these should apply if it is the dominant function; if only 1-2 points apply then it could be lower in the stack or some minor overlap with Ne): Do you observe situations from “the grand scheme of things”, often wondering about or visualizing far flung potentialities? Do you think it’s important to reflect more deeply into situations for better understanding? Is it important for you to feel a sense of certainty about how a situation will turn out, and do you often feel certain about future outcomes, sometimes without knowing why or have difficulty explaining why? Do you find it hard to make decisions or maintain interest in something if you cannot see any meaning or significance behind the actions available? Do you often find yourself thinking that people or situations seem superficial, or often think that life requires more meaning or purpose? Do you dislike it when people seem narrow-minded or short-sighted in their outlook? Do you have strong ideas about what life or the world should be like in order for it to be better than it is at present (and do you feel listless when you have no such ideas)? Do you feel uneasy when your life lacks good direction or steady progress?"


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Turi said:


>


I see an ancient artifact/mask


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Best real life example about how I can currently imagine Ni for myself is experiencing those moments of realizations or a-ha stuff. 

You let the information be as is and then just know where it leads to. I've experienced those only a few occassions but I guess it should be that. I recently experienced that while thinking at a complex task to solve at work and then later driving car to home just suddenly realized where the problem actually lies.

My GF who's INFJ confirmed that she's having those experiences often. She explained it working like that: you just let the information gathered via any perceptions be there, don't do any concious judgements and just wait while it settles down -> sudden pop and the answer finds you without conciously seeking for it or knowing from where it came. She also confirmed having visions about the future and many times those things have became true later.

Of course I know Ni is not only about that but as the initial question was about real life examples not about theoretical complexity, it's the best way I can actually imagine it in my head


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

Jordan Peterson said:


> Often what I would do, for example, if I want to solve a problem...is *I'll sit on a bed or a chair and I'll think "OK, I would like an answer to this. I would like to know the answer to this, and I'm willing to accept whatever answer is appropriate"...and then magically, so-to-speak, an answer appears*.
> 
> ...to clear your mind of your proximal concerns, and to concentrate more deeply on what might be regarded as eternally true and *open yourself up to revelation* in relationship to what is eternally true. I've found that incredibly effective, and I think you can live like that - you just have to abandon your proximal pursuits.


This has a strong Ni/Ti bias, but gets at it rather well.

(I know some people like to type Jordan Peterson as an Si type, he's always struck me as a painfully obvious example of a Socionics Beta type, which makes him a Ti/Ni type, probably xNFJ, Enneagram 1)


----------



## joup (Oct 5, 2014)

Dscross said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm very new to this forum but I thought I'd start a thread to get the ball rolling with something I've always wanted to understand. I am an ENFP, so I understand Ne perfectly.
> 
> ...


The way you think the world works, the Ni type thinks the complete opposite way of how the world works.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

joup said:


> The way you think the world works, the Ni type thinks the complete opposite way of how the world works.


Lol, really because I don't believe I think the world operates like most people do? Are you sure Ne doesn't do a bit of that too?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)




----------



## joup (Oct 5, 2014)

Dscross said:


> Lol, really because I don't believe I think the world operates like most people do? Are you sure Ne doesn't do a bit of that too?


It is the opposite of the way the world of the Ne type, works.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

joup said:


> It is the opposite of the way the world of the Ne type, works.


I think I need an example to get what you are talking about tbh. From what I've read in the rest of this thread, I don't know if what you say is the case so I might need some more detail on what you mean.


----------



## joup (Oct 5, 2014)

Dscross said:


> I think I need an example to get what you are talking about tbh. From what I've read in the rest of this thread, I don't know if what you say is the case so I might need some more detail on what you mean.


the Ni type is going to stick to their own internal "vision", where as the "Ne" type will keep consuming "vision" from external sources, consistently, because that is normal to them, where as the Ni will always revert to their own. That is where the friction comes from, between the two types, because it is completely opposite.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Ne is seeing around the situation.
Ni sees through the situation.

Ne is like: "you know what else we can do? We can go and..."

Ni is like: "You know what this is about? I'll tell you what this is about..."


----------



## Winegums (Sep 8, 2014)

If Ne is an exploded web of everything that the person knows that allows interconnections, then Ni is an imploded web where all the information is interconnected that pertains to single concepts, objects, ideas, etc. Like a multidimensional mental foam of information.

Ni works with the raw essence of things which is hard to describe if one does not have it (or has not introspected enough). Essence is the core, the pure raw information that describes something. It's far superior to any spoken or written language when it comes to purveying information. It is EVERYTHING that is that object/subject, the inner mechanics, the appearance, the way it interacts with other things, all the sensory information, the pure nature of it. It's like opening a zip file that contains every scrap of information that makes that thing what it is and nothing more. Looking at the Essence of something gives the Ni user everything they know about it all at once. 

For example, essence makes naming things a purely external exercise so that others can understand. In our minds the thing doesn't need a name because it is obvious what it is to us, there is no need when it is so perfectly presented in our head. Using a name, mental picture, or any other verbalizable description is inferior and slower than using the essence of it.

When an Ni user talks about patterns it's their Ni using these orbs of essence together to form ideas and see how they work together. When complete it forms a perception as an end result, it says, "due to this and this being present in this order and this situation, this must be what is happening" or "If the essence of this connects with this in this way, then it produces this result. Because the essence is so pure it can work quickly without the need to imagine or mentally visualize the connection it's making. Essence becomes mental building blocks for Ni which it can play with. 

Another word for "pattern" might be "formula", but both aren't entirely accurate terms for what Ni is doing. It's not like a simple math equation. The patterns are sometimes complex and multi dimensional, dependent on a huge number of conditions in some cases.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Jung gives an excelent example of a Universal experience:

The *Introverted Sensation* man feels all the sensations in the body and notices how many seconds it was and how it felt. He feels the heart beating faster and faster. How sensations of vertigo in the belly appear while the hairs on his back lifted and his legs became weak and involuntary started walking in the direction of that beautiful women he saw. And he understands that is what it means to fall in love.

The *Introverted Intuition* man will visualize himself being struck by an arrow in the chest and angels lifting him up in the air making him fly to the clouds while the entire world vanishes and only that beautiful women stays. That is how he understands what it means to fall in love.

*Si*= he notices that being in love makes you experience those specific sensations *(the details)*
*Ni*= he notices that love makes you blind to everything else and takes you to a different dimension where life becomes lighter *(inner pattern)*

You can read every single extrapolation you find about Introverted Intuition. The originial is here:

https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm


----------



## Ecchi (Jun 26, 2018)

I'm Ni inferior, but I still understand it in theory.

Ne debates others. Ni debates themselves.

Ni is the biggest on self-reflection, self-protection, etc. The most self-aware.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Weird because people seem fully aware of how Si vs. Se works. 

The Se people are the types that will jump off of a cliff for the full exhilaration of it, assuming everything will be chill and fun while Si are the people whom have taken in all the facts and experience and then can present an exposé to the many risks of doing just that. 

Ni vs. Ne is essentially the exact same, just in the mental world. 

Ne wants to leap to conclusions and push boundaries and see what's out there without leaving a safety trail of extensive knowledge behind. Ni will sit around and contemplate all day filtering out idea after idea to ultimately draw a mental picture of what makes sense, no matter how long it takes.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

Ni is the enlighted hippie " It's all connected maaan."
Ne is the mad scientist " Imagine the possibilties! "


----------

