# Ni and the Subconscious Mind



## Asd456 (Jul 25, 2017)

Turi said:


> I am withdrawing from this conversation whilst I further my understandings.


Good call. Glad you're finally taking my advice.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Asd456 said:


> Good call. Glad you're finally taking my advice.


Spare me.


----------



## Daiz (Jan 4, 2017)

PiT said:


> Talking to an ISFJ colleague about our respective approaches to computer programming, I commented that I often make an important breakthrough in my work when I step away from my computer and stop thinking deliberately about it. She said on the other hand that she slept on these problems to solve them.
> 
> Hearing this, it occurred to me that perhaps sleeping invokes a process similar to Ni, even for someone who is not an Ni-user. I have long been mystified by claims that Ni is subconscious, but this possibility would explain that. I hypothesize that Ni reflects the standard mode of thought of the subconscious mind, with Ni-users distinguishing themselves from others in being able to access this faculty consciously.
> 
> Thoughts?


I can figure out a solution by sheer time and effort but it will usually be kinda crap and visibly forced. All my biggest and most dramatic leaps in skill or idea come from me taking a break from the problem for a few weeks - months. This especially applies to my creative pursuits. I don't get better by practising but by stopping altogether for a month or so.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Turi said:


> I thought the general consensus was that Ni was completely subconscious. Didn't Jung say that?
> 
> Either way.
> 
> ...


I think what distinguises "Jungian" (Ni) - from general intuition; is the fact it is embedded via the (cognitive-dichontomies) + only functionally 'coherent' with the assistance (of other cognitive-function referents): 

In other words; there is no "Just (Ni)," - there are (*NT*)'s, (*NF*)'s, and so forth. A (Ni)-dom without the cognitive-function referents; is simply an 'intuitive' person. (re:_ the sky is blue; the earth is flat_), and specimen that is highly "_common sense_," relient. When understaning (Ni), is perphas useful to understand the effects of (Ti/Fi/Si) [and how it functions /bounces off other referents] - not just the 'perceptive'-function itself, as a singlular function/entity, which I suspect is where it gets hazy when distinguishing between the two.

In order for (Ni-dom), to make sense, it must not be (excluded from - transcend the 'whole') itself transcending into some strange form of Solipsist thought, or this the (Ni-dom) is nullified. There is simpy a humanoid utilizing general 'intution' via the general sensory global complex; and it still hits a performative contradiction  to being a 'dominant (Ni_-user_)'.

*For ex; (1)*

_Cognitive-functions are not their own 'brains', they are apart of brains,' themselves._



Turi said:


> How is this not simply being human, and using your brain?



The same fallacy occur(s) via viewing 'brain-processes' such as (consciousness) as a 'separate brain' (rather than a subset / effect of the brain itself).


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Agent X said:


> EDIT: Ni realization, so Ti is slow, Te is fast? Would I be correct in assuming that?


Of yourse. Ti is like a maze. Short distance, covered in a long route.
Te is straight to the point. Shortest, easiest way it's possible.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Daiz said:


> I can figure out a solution by sheer time and effort but it will usually be kinda crap and visibly forced. All my biggest and most dramatic leaps in skill or idea come from me taking a break from the problem for a few weeks - months. This especially applies to my creative pursuits. I don't get better by practising but by stopping altogether for a month or so.


It's difficult to attribute this to any cognitive function in particular, isn't this how our brains best process information?
It's certainly advice I've always been given, and dish out myself to others when they're banging their head against a brick wall - I figured it was common knowledge, the norm.

Haven't done any research into it, but I mean the ancient Europeans weren't taking siestas for no reason, were they?

It makes perfect logical sense that humans require mental downtime in order for other parts of the brain to connect the dots, otherwise you're just trying to force something that's never going to happen.

You _do _get better by practicing, however, it's just that your brain then needs to process the information it's received from you practicing for best effect - so that it can turn that information into second nature, or muscle memory, etc.

Difficult to attribute this to any cognitive function in particular, when it's simply how everyones brain works.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

jetser said:


> Of yourse. Ti is like a maze. Short distance, covered in a long route.
> Te is straight to the point. Shortest, easiest way it's possible.



Have you ever watched _Confession Tapes_, or anything of that nature?
I feel like what I witness with the police/detectives, who get like one tiny piece of information that may/may not prove someone to be guilty (they don't do the necessary checks).. is Te in full force.

They see a piece of evidence, and well that's it - this person must have done it - so the narrative shifts from finding out the truth, to proving this particular person is guilty, because they work with the actual evidence and information they have at hand, forcing it to fit - perhaps they see it as the truth.

They see someone on camera in a certain place at 7pm, the crime happened at about the same time, so that's it - that someone is the killer - what else can we find to prove his guilt?
The don't consider anything else, no other possibilities etc, just hone in on the most likely one given the information they have at hand.

Could also be an Fe thing maybe. Both would make decisions based on information given to them in real-time, I guess.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Turi said:


> It's difficult to attribute this to any cognitive function in particular, isn't this how our brains best process information?
> It's certainly advice I've always been given, and dish out myself to others when they're banging their head against a brick wall - I figured it was common knowledge, the norm.
> 
> Haven't done any research into it, but I mean the ancient Europeans weren't taking siestas for no reason, were they?
> ...


It is true that everyone needs downtime to deal with various intellectual problems. It is also the case however that some people need more downtime than others, and this seems to relate to type. In my experience ENTJs are much better at speaking to issues off the cuff than INTJs are, which has to do with leading with a more "straight to the point" function in Te as opposed to Ni.

A valid point is that this might be an introversion versus extroversion issue. Maybe it is, since introversion naturally invites a longer route. I would be interested to hear the perspective of an Fi-dom on the matter however, as that one seems to be the most to-the-point of the introverted functions.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

Fascinating question! What physical memory is to the body, Ni is to the brain. You are not aware of the process, but only of the results.

When you learn to type, eventually you can type quickly without thinking at all about what keys you are pressing - because the memory of the location of each key is 'saved' in your fingers. So your ability to type smoothly is disrupted if you stop to consciously _think_ about what keys you are pressing, or where they are. In fact, you might not even be able to tell people where a specific key is on the keyboard - your fingers know where it is (since they can find it when you're typing), but your conscious brain hasn't memorized its location. So it's like conscious thought has to be 'switched off' in order for your fingers' memory to kick in. That's _physical memory_. 

When you perceive using introverted intuition, you can draw conclusions without being aware of the mental process by which you reached those conclusions - because that process is happening in your subconscious mind. Information flows in to your brain, and is processed 'behind your back,' so to speak, by your subconscious mind, so suddenly you *just know* things and can't explain _how_ you know. You might feel that if your conscious brain is 'switched off,' then you are capable of what you cannot do otherwise. This is _subconscious processing. _INFJs, INTJs, ENFJs, and ENTJs primarily perceive information in this fashion. 

Not everything your brain does can occur in the conscious mind, or else your mental 'computer screen' would 'crash' from the overload of too many processes running at once. It needs some of its _many_ processes to run in the background, rather than in the forefront. Even those who do not primarily use Ni to perceive the world still must run these 'background processes,' and use their subconscious mind frequently.

Our bodies fall into a different state of consciousness during sleep, but our brains are still very much awake (if you define awake as active) with certain physiological processes paused. The scientific community still does not completely understand all that goes on during sleep, but they know that there are still some mental 'background' processes running. For instance, we can hear (which is a function of our brain as much as of our ears) the alarm go off. During sleep, our brains can sort through our thoughts and emotions, draw conclusions, put together ideas in a creative fashion, 'save' our thoughts into permanent memory, even do math (according to a recent study reported in Scientific American)! So that is probably how your ISFJ friend can 'sleep on it' and come up with a solution in the morning. Is it similar to Ni? Yes, in the sense that the cognitive processing is not going on consciously. 

cf. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unconscious-brain-can-do-math/


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

PiT said:


> Talking to an ISFJ colleague about our respective approaches to computer programming, I commented that I often make an important breakthrough in my work when I step away from my computer and stop thinking deliberately about it. She said on the other hand that she slept on these problems to solve them.
> 
> Hearing this, it occurred to me that perhaps sleeping invokes a process similar to Ni, even for someone who is not an Ni-user. I have long been mystified by claims that Ni is subconscious, but this possibility would explain that. I hypothesize that Ni reflects the standard mode of thought of the subconscious mind, with Ni-users distinguishing themselves from others in being able to access this faculty consciously.
> 
> Thoughts?


Haha, no. Man, look this is going to shatter your mind, but it's nothing Ni related at all. This is about brain waves.

Read:
What are Brainwaves ? Types of Brain waves | EEG sensor and brain wave – UK

As you can see, the things you said are theta waves. This applies to pretty much all humanity. 

Read more:
https://www.livescience.com/5820-sleeping-helps.html

It helps. Well, to the unconscious mind to unleash.


































Interesting stuff, huh? I think it's also related to sleep stages

Link: https://health.nokia.com/blog/2015/03/17/the-4-different-stages-of-sleep/

Typologies are all about differentiating personalities, but they don't talk much about how brain actually work. This thing what happened to your ISFJ is only a normal stuff for brains. This isn't personality, therefore it's not Ni. There isn't a preference for it, because we all have this feature included.

This is like peeing. We all do it, but it doesn't mean anything about our personality. How we do it, may mean something, but you should get the idea by now.

Any questions?


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Turi said:


> I thought the general consensus was that Ni was completely subconscious. Didn't Jung say that?
> 
> Either way.
> 
> ...


This post is fucking genius. I agree with it and it reminds one of my old threads. Here's a link: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/969314-here-some-improvements-mbti-typology.html

imo same goes for Si. It's as vague and Ni. Now fine tuning my old thread and it will fit what you say. Thanks for writing this.

BTW you said, that you will talk with me in PMs, but you didn't came. What happened? I swear, this time it wasn't a huge wall-o-text.


----------



## Zeus (Oct 8, 2011)

Turi said:


> What anger? I was trying to get some answers from you.
> Not sure what the attack on my avatar is about, haha.
> 
> That's hardly an Ni prediction, haha, it's a piss poor attempt at reverse psychology, based upon incorrect assumptions at that.
> ...


I would state that's true of ESTPs up till they mid 20s when Ni starts to develop.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Red Magician said:


> I don't feel like answering your questions.


You never feel like digging deep into issues and offering your reasoning.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

The red spirit said:


> Haha, no. Man, look this is going to shatter your mind, but it's nothing Ni related at all. This is about brain waves.
> 
> Read:
> What are Brainwaves ? Types of Brain waves | EEG sensor and brain wave – UK
> ...


Of course everyone does this; I said as much. The factor that I was talking about has to do with when people do this stuff. I get these sorts of subconscious impulses quite frequently when I am awake, and sometimes when I am consciously thinking about the object. I have _never_ actually intuited anything as a result of sleeping, unlike the person whose testimony inspired this thread.

Also, LOL at "shamanic journeying". Makes the brain waves chart hard to take seriously, which is sad since it otherwise looks interesting.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

PiT said:


> Also, LOL at "shamanic journeying". Makes the brain waves chart hard to take seriously, which is sad since it otherwise looks interesting.


I have no trouble believing that shamanistic practises can cause measurable changes in brain waves. What I took issue with was how subjective mystical experiences are made into actual verifiable experiences, like "visiting other dimensions". Good example of Ni and Se being at odds, hmm? No wonder considering the source of the chart is a past life regression therapist and a shamanic energy medicine practitioner.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

PiT said:


> Of course everyone does this; I said as much. The factor that I was talking about has to do with when people do this stuff.


The thing is that anyone can do that in their sleep state. Sometimes, when I'm horribly sleep deprived by body pretty much closes eyes and turns on what you called "Ni". It's semi-sleeping state and it connects dots. Helps with thinking and such, but usually results into falling asleep.



PiT said:


> I get these sorts of subconscious impulses quite frequently when I am awake, and sometimes when I am consciously thinking about the object.


I get them too. Probably everyone gets them from time to time.



PiT said:


> I have _never_ actually intuited anything as a result of sleeping, unlike the person whose testimony inspired this thread.


Strange, because it can happen to everyone. Maybe it depends on sleeping habits and how much you sleep. Anyway, this is not a typology anymore.



PiT said:


> Also, LOL at "shamanic journeying". Makes the brain waves chart hard to take seriously, which is sad since it otherwise looks interesting.


Gotta admit, that I didn't look much into articles and pictures I gave to you. My intention was to introduce you to brain waves and sleep stages. Anyway this stuff is more scientific than MBTI is. Sleep states are really valid thing. Brain waves probably is scientific concept. Seems to me like pretty valid things. How they are portrayed by articles is a different story.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

The red spirit said:


> Gotta admit, that I didn't look much into articles and pictures I gave to you. My intention was to introduce you to brain waves and sleep stages. Anyway this stuff is more scientific than MBTI is. Sleep states are really valid thing. Brain waves probably is scientific concept. Seems to me like pretty valid things. How they are portrayed by articles is a different story.


So when EEG is used to detect brain waves, that is reliable science? But when Dario Nardi uses EEG to prove cognitive functions / Jungian types (note: not MBTI, we're not talking about MBTI but cognitive functions) exist and lead into specific kind of brain activity, that is bad science?

If I were to follow your reasoning there, I wouldn't really even have to look into Nardi's research to see if it is actually valid or not. So when he states that NJ (Ni) types often have all regions of their neocortex in sync, each region lending a perspective; mind awake yet relaxed synchronizing all of it to the best possible answer or explanation, often unusual or novel by nature - a state that occurs for _all personality types _when engaging an area of expertise, but for NJ types this activity happens also when facing entirely new problems and unfamiliar situations as well... I could take all that, say that is what Ni is, scientifically verified, call it a day, no need for further discussion.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Gilead said:


> So when EEG is used to detect brain waves, that is reliable science? But when Dario Nardi uses EEG to prove cognitive functions / Jungian types (note: not MBTI, we're not talking about MBTI but cognitive functions) exist and lead into specific kind of brain activity, that is bad science?


That part was pretty scientific, but it makes people doubt it, because MBTI type testing is very prone to mistyping. Also he did this stuff using MBTI step II typology, not cognitive function typology. On top of that in MBTI there is a huge vagueness factor. Form what I found out myself, there are lots of bit different descriptions of stuff and mostly it's all correct, even if it conflicts between itself.

Look here for more criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator

Nardi really did something, but due to unclear nature of MBTI it's hard to say if it's valid or not. Yet again I would question and investigate brain waves more to confirm their validity. I just said, that it seems to be valid, but I'm not too sure about that. Data says it is, internal process of me still hasn't come to conclusions yet.




Gilead said:


> If I were to follow your reasoning there, I wouldn't really even have to look into Nardi's work to see if it is actually valid or not. So when he states that NJ (Ni) types often have all regions of their neocortex in sync, each region lending a perspective; mind awake yet relaxed synchronizing all of it to the best possible answer or explanation, often unusual by nature - a state that occurs for _all personality types _when engaging an area of expertise, but for NJ types this activity happens also when facing entirely novel problems as well... I could take all that, say that is what Ni is, scientifically verified, call it a day, no need for further discussion.


And why not discuss that even if truth is already known? Socialization should be done if someone wants to do it.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

The red spirit said:


> The thing is that anyone can do that in their sleep state. Sometimes, when I'm horribly sleep deprived by body pretty much closes eyes and turns on what you called "Ni". It's semi-sleeping state and it connects dots. Helps with thinking and such, but usually results into falling asleep.
> 
> I get them too. Probably everyone gets them from time to time.


As Turi referred to earlier, everyone has all functions in some capacity. Connecting dots is fundamental to the usage of Ni (it has been noted in this thread that Si and Ni are similar in many ways, though Si tends to be more interested in developing comparisons than connection, and my hypothesis revolves around the thought that someone with strong Ni would have an easier time invoking this talent without entering the sleep state. 



The red spirit said:


> Strange, because it can happen to everyone. Maybe it depends on sleeping habits and how much you sleep. Anyway, this is not a typology anymore.


It's possible that it happens sometimes, but I don't notice it. My point is that it is not a major source of this sort of subconscious thinking for me, considering how frequently it strikes me while I am in a waking state. 

Maybe that is the takeaway here: Ni is subconscious after all, but the frequency with which the Ni-user taps into it results in a playing down of the typical modes of connection with the subconscious.



The red spirit said:


> Gotta admit, that I didn't look much into articles and pictures I gave to you. My intention was to introduce you to brain waves and sleep stages. Anyway this stuff is more scientific than MBTI is. Sleep states are really valid thing. Brain waves probably is scientific concept. Seems to me like pretty valid things. How they are portrayed by articles is a different story.


I don't doubt that brain waves are real and carry significance in when they are registered; I was mainly commenting on some of the stuff associated with different types of brain waves in the chart. The juxtaposition of cognitive science with new age mysticism was too weird for me to forgo noting. I realize now that it came across as more of a serious point than it was meant to be.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

PiT said:


> As Turi referred to earlier, everyone has all functions in some capacity. Connecting dots is fundamental to the usage of Ni (it has been noted in this thread that Si and Ni are similar in many ways, though Si tends to be more interested in developing comparisons than connection, and my hypothesis revolves around the thought that someone with strong Ni would have an easier time invoking this talent without entering the sleep state.


I would argue, that Ni "sees" those dots and then T function or F function instantly connects those, because N is perceiving function, not judging. I would also argue, that connecting dots is a simple factor of intelligence. As you can see, I make no sense. 




PiT said:


> It's possible that it happens sometimes, but I don't notice it. My point is that it is not a major source of this sort of subconscious thinking for me, considering how frequently it strikes me while I am in a waking state.


It's not major for me either. Yet it doesn't have to be. So the thing was that, you thought it was a major source for that ISFJ?




PiT said:


> Maybe that is the takeaway here: Ni is subconscious after all, but the frequency with which the Ni-user taps into it results in a playing down of the typical modes of connection with the subconscious.


maybe




PiT said:


> I don't doubt that brain waves are real and carry significance in when they are registered; I was mainly commenting on some of the stuff associated with different types of brain waves in the chart.


I get it. After that shaman thing I would have questioned it too.



PiT said:


> The juxtaposition of cognitive science with new age mysticism was too weird for me to forgo noting. I realize now that it came across as more of a serious point than it was meant to be.


You can talk about this more serious point if you want it. I will read it.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

The red spirit said:


> That part was pretty scientific, but it makes people doubt it, because MBTI type testing is very prone to mistyping. Also he did this stuff using MBTI step II typology, not cognitive function typology. On top of that in MBTI there is a huge vagueness factor. Form what I found out myself, there are lots of bit different descriptions of stuff and mostly it's all correct, even if it conflicts between itself.
> 
> Look here for more criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator
> 
> Nardi really did something, but due to unclear nature of MBTI it's hard to say if it's valid or not. Yet again I would question and investigate brain waves more to confirm their validity. I just said, that it seems to be valid, but I'm not too sure about that. Data says it is, internal process of me still hasn't come to conclusions yet.


What are you on about? He clearly mentions cognitive functions in relation to type, constantly refers to Beebe and the "everyone uses all eight functions" -model etc.

Like said; we're not talking about MBTI. This is not even MBTI subforum. But CF subforum. Whether MBTI is broken or not is not the thing that is being discussed. We were talking about Ni, and how conscious it is for different people, and then people started asking for proof that Ni even is a separate "thing" and not just being human.

It wasn't my intention to actually use Nardi to validate my perspective since it's plausible his method was flawed. But someone with strong Ni for example could take Nardi's findings and creatively use it together with ideas about adaptation and differentation (or dimensionality) of the functions; and could come up with an explanation that Introverted intuition is simply an attempt at conceptualizing a brain mechanism that enables a person to synthesize perspectives to come up with new meanings; and while each person can use this on _some_ areas, it is not the thing they predominately use when facing unfamiliar situations because they rely on some other mechanism/function instead. Which seems to pretty much make it a "human thing", but also enables the explanation that 

type = habitual preference for function that is highly adapted, usually with an extroverted or introverted attitude; other functions fall on the stack _somehow_.



> And why not discuss that even if truth is already known? Socialization should be done if someone wants to do it.


Because I do not think we know the truth. If we did, there would be no _need _for discussion.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Gilead said:


> What are you on about? He clearly mentions cognitive functions in relation to type, constantly refers to Beebe and the "everyone uses all eight functions" -model etc.


Sorry, I haven't watched that long video for a long time.




Gilead said:


> Like said; we're not talking about MBTI. This is not even MBTI subforum. But CF subforum. Whether MBTI is broken or not is not the thing that is being discussed. We were talking about Ni, and how conscious it is for different people, and then people started asking for proof that Ni even is a separate "thing" and not just being human.


well ok




Gilead said:


> It wasn't my intention to actually use Nardi to validate my perspective since it's plausible his method was flawed.


He only tested 60 people. There are 16 types. We get less than 3 people per type. That pretty much leaves lots of space for fluctuations and inconsistencies.



Gilead said:


> But someone with strong Ni for example could take Nardi's findings and creatively use it together with ideas about adaptation and differentation (or dimensionality) of the functions; and could come up with an explanation that Introverted intuition is simply an attempt at conceptualizing a brain mechanism that enables a person to synthesize perspectives to come up with new meanings; and while each person can use this on _some_ areas, it is not the thing they predominately use when facing unfamiliar situations because they rely on some other mechanism/function instead. Which seems to pretty much make it a "human thing", but also enables the explanation that
> 
> type = habitual preference for function that is highly adapted, usually with an extroverted or introverted attitude; other functions fall on the stack _somehow_.


Makes sense




Gilead said:


> Because I do not think we know the truth. If we did, there would be no _need _for discussion.


If we did then look at anime forums. The truth has been seen by everyone, but they still talk about stuff. Same thing happens in many other forums. PerC isn't an exception for that, so it can be used for further discussions. That was my point.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

The red spirit said:


> He only tested 60 people. There are 16 types. We get less than 3 people per type. That pretty much leaves lots of space for fluctuations and inconsistencies.


Well, yes, his methods can be questioned, and plenty can go wrong when conducting research. It's still some level of proof that type-related differences could be recognized and verified.



> If we did then look at anime forums. The truth has been seen by everyone, but they still talk about stuff. Same thing happens in many other forums. PerC isn't an exception for that, so it can be used for further discussions. That was my point.


There is no truth in anime :/


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

emerald sea said:


> Fascinating question! What physical memory is to the body, Ni is to the brain. You are not aware of the process, but only of the results.
> 
> When you learn to type, eventually you can type quickly without thinking at all about what keys you are pressing - because the memory of the location of each key is 'saved' in your fingers. So your ability to type smoothly is disrupted if you stop to consciously _think_ about what keys you are pressing, or where they are. In fact, you might not even be able to tell people where a specific key is on the keyboard - your fingers know where it is (since they can find it when you're typing), but your conscious brain hasn't memorized its location. So it's like conscious thought has to be 'switched off' in order for your fingers' memory to kick in. That's _physical memory_.
> 
> ...


This very good.

It’s good to see you back!


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

The red spirit said:


> I would argue, that Ni "sees" those dots and then T function or F function instantly connects those, because N is perceiving function, not judging. I would also argue, that connecting dots is a simple factor of intelligence. As you can see, I make no sense.


Interesting thought. It makes sense, in that I find I need Te to really use Ni properly. Before I can order it in my mind, it's just a confused jumble of thoughts and impressions. Would this mean then that the subconscious is really functioning as an aid to our judging functions?



The red spirit said:


> It's not major for me either. Yet it doesn't have to be. So the thing was that, you thought it was a major source for that ISFJ?


She saw the need to identify that specifically as a source of insights when I mentioned that I get them while doing something else. That she could associate problem-solving insights with sleep must mean that she associates them more strongly with sleep than I do (as I do not associate them with that state at all).



The red spirit said:


> You can talk about this more serious point if you want it. I will read it.


This sort of new age mysticism annoys me, because people treat such silliness with a significant amount of seriousness. I can't tell you how many people I have had try to tell me that Astrology is legit, and I always demand to see some form of scientific evidence. MBTI is not the most rigorous theory by any means, but it has some basis in psychological literature. There is a clear mechanism that lends credibility to MBTI, even though the exact theory is probably unprovable. A lot of these things are strict woo woo, and I want to see some reason to believe that they _could_ describe real mechanisms before I take them seriously.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

If Ni doms _primarily _process information through a state of subconsciousness, what exactly goes through their mind, all day every day?
What is their mind-chatter?

Attempting to picture someone who _primarily _processes information in this fashion seems beyond preposterous - this brings to mind a sloth, someone with a learning disability, someone so old their brain has trouble keeping up with what is going on.

So given this handicap, how on Earth do they function? 
How do they deal with new information, as it comes in, in real time?

Because, the simple truth is, supposed Ni doms *do* deal with new information in real time, they're not _primarily _processing information through their subconscious.
I call bullshit on this theory. It's wrong. It can't possibly be right.

If this is true then Ni dominants are people who get told something, and then boom, fucking brain freeze - can't process this information until later on. 
I can understand how this may be linked to inferior Se in that the Ni dom would prefer not to intake large amounts of information at a time, however I feel this is a stretch, as this is simply a given, and something that once again, all humans have a tendency to do.

Won't find many people on this entire planet who love being overloaded with information.


I'm not calling bullshit on typology theory as a whole, simply on our understanding of introverted intuition as a primary source of receiving and processing information - our understanding of it simply has _got _to be incorrect.

The link between Ni and the subconscious, in my opinion, is a fallacy, non-existent.
I don't care what any philosphers from a million years ago had to say.
When we refer to these aspects of "Ni", we are simply referring to human nature and aspects of it that everyone on this planet has.


I have difficulty understanding how this subconscious aspect of Ni could be a dominant force in anyones life.

I have very _little _difficulty understanding how Ni would simply be synthesising Se perceptions, where one is out of tune with the immediate environment, and more focused on how they are perceiving what is happening, rather than the happenings themselves - and seeking to make sense out of these condensed perceptions via a judging function.

I would argue this is a conscious process and something Ni dominants are keenly aware of.


**I'm fully aware I typed myself as an Ni dom here for quite a while stfu**


----------



## Agent X (May 23, 2017)

I think explaining Ni is a futile endevour, as its completely subconscious, especially seeing it would be hard to synthesize to non-Ni dominant people. I see Ni as a background processor of sorts. It stores visual information, draws parallels to other information, sees the similarities, and draws conclusion based on current trends. Everything in this world is interconnected (I'm sure many Ni dominants would agree with that statement), but Ni takes that understanding to a whole new level, based on past trends (yes I know this is sounding like Si) and predicting the future. That is my attempt at explaining it, but I am aware that I missed certain key areas of it.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Agent X said:


> I think explaining Ni is a futile endevour, as its completely subconscious, especially seeing it would be hard to synthesize to non-Ni dominant people. I see Ni as a background processor of sorts. It stores visual information, draws parallels to other information, sees the similarities, and draws conclusion based on current trends. Everything in this world is interconnected (I'm sure many Ni dominants would agree with that statement), but Ni takes that understanding to a whole new level, based on past trends (yes I know this is sounding like Si) and predicting the future. That is my attempt at explaining it, but I am aware that I missed certain key areas of it.


Yes, a process that works in the background, precisely - and one we all possess.

One that is impossible to utilise as a dominant function due to very nature of how it works - subconsciously.
In the background.

It isn't a possibility that this is the _primary_ method of processing information for anyone.

Comparing and contrasting information in the manner you described is how the Si-Ne axis works, it doesn't even line up with how the Ni-Se axis is currently understood.

By definition, Ni can't predict anything, predictions involve a decision and Ni is a _perception_ function.
Any and all "hunches" or "predictions" are the work of a perception function (any) combined with a judging function (any).

Ni is a method of processing information - an input - when people magically have those "aha" moments, this is Ni (the form everyone has) - working subconsciously and digesting data - what makes sense of that data, is a judging function.


It's a bit like Se. People connect it with impulse, action, doing - this isn't right and can't be accurate - Se is a perceiving function.
Any and all action is a result of a judging function.

So when someone gets drunk for instance, this isn't due to Se or anything, we read about inferior Se BS all the time in Ni doms - it's actually poor use of a judging function that results in the person taking action, and drinking til they're drunk. Not Se. Se doesn't act.

imo, lol.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

Why are you getting so stuck with the word "subconscious"? This is what Jung says at the beginning of the type description: "Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality."

We are talking about a type that is specifically conserned with transferring unconscious content into consciousness.

My theory is, once the synthesis has happened the result emerges as the infamous mental imagery. I don't see what is so damn complicated about that. When the focus becomes exaggerated they would disconnect from reality and focus entirely on their vision about what is going on without making very sophisticated judgements on it ("I must have visited another dimension").

I will refer to that Jung's patient who had a serpent in her stomach. She didn't say "my condition gives me stomach ache" - she was not consciously focusing on the sensation but rather verbalized it that way to best describe the the feeling. Snake is also great example of an archetypal symbol here in the sense that we are usually naturally repulsed by certain dangerous things. So the association here is clear. She did not literally swallow a snake but that she experiences it there indicates that something is wrong.

I know an intuitive who frequently describes her pains saying she is in the clutchess of an iron fist, making diagnosis very hard - can you imagine my surprise when a sensor once said her ailment us "as if" being strangled by a giant hand. This seems to indicate that symbolism like that has its roots in archetypal content.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Turi said:


> If Ni doms _primarily _process information through a state of subconsciousness, what exactly goes through their mind, all day every day?
> What is their mind-chatter?
> 
> Attempting to picture someone who _primarily _processes information in this fashion seems beyond preposterous - this brings to mind a sloth, someone with a learning disability, someone so old their brain has trouble keeping up with what is going on.
> ...


This is exactly the description for Ni:

_As a base function, Ni generally manifests itself through a lack of direct attention to the world around oneself, and a sense of detachment or freedom from worldly affairs. This can lead to a highly developed imagination and very unique mental world, but it can also result in a *great deal of laziness and apparent inactivity*. Because the individual gets his or her primary information about the world through mindful simulation of events, a person with leading Ni may be able to thrive in situations where data are scarce, or where he or she lacks the usual prerequisite experience. However, this may also become a disadvantage if the person becomes overly reliant on his mental simulations while disregarding attaining actual experience in areas that interest him, turning down opportunities without trying them out which leads to boredom. The ability to transcend the axis of time and understand the cause and effect relationships that occur is also a feature, sometimes resulting in the ability to accurately predict general future trends and outcomes of certain events._

https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/2c69ms/socionicsmbti_descriptions_by_functions_intj/


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I refuse to accept some women using a metaphor as evidence of iNtUiTiOn of any kind.


----------



## Agent X (May 23, 2017)

Turi said:


> Yes, a process that works in the background, precisely - and one we all possess.
> 
> One that is impossible to utilise as a dominant function due to very nature of how it works - subconsciously.
> In the background.
> ...


Not sure if the imo bit was necessary. I don't understand this, just because we are Ni dominant, you expect us to give you an detailed example (Ti) on how something that works subconsciously, to the point where you question it's existence that it can't be proven? So short-sighted.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

Turi said:


> I refuse to accept some women using a metaphor as evidence of iNtUiTiOn of any kind.


So what do you think it was? Sensation? Don't make me laugh.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

You can't hide the fact that you're having an identity crisis behind a facade of being a rational thinker just by talking about "proof" and "evidence" all the time, it takes a bit more than that.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Gilead said:


> So what do you think it was? Sensation? Don't make me laugh.


I literally described what I think it was in my post.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

Turi said:


> I literally described what I think it was in my post.


You described what in your post?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Gilead said:


> You described what in your post?


What I thought the snake thing was. A metaphor.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

Turi said:


> What I thought the snake thing was. A metaphor.


A metaphor for what?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Gilead said:


> A metaphor for what?


Pain in her stomach.

If you ask me "whos stomach?" my mind will explode.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

Turi said:


> Pain in her stomach.
> 
> If you ask me "whos stomach?" my mind will explode.


Then why didn't she say she had pain in her stomach?


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Turi said:


> Still think Ni needs to be, and can be, demystified.


Yep, this must be done. Maybe not in this thread, but in another. Anyway it really has to be done once and for all (pretty impossible, but whatever).


Reply to my new PM


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

@HallowedHydraNess 

I appreciate you sharing that experience. The reason I would avoid excessive speculation about the type is two-fold: first, type indicates habitual preferences so using just one example will not give a reliable answer. Secondly, although a person "should" rely on their natural/conscious strengths when in danger, situations like that can also require us to do whatever we can to deal with it. In your desciption there are plenty of details that could as such be attributed to various functions, but what rises above all else is that this situation required strength to act in the situation, which I would link to utilizing Se. This might be a conscious strength, or it might be sudden experience. Other than that, I would like to avoid making further assumptions, and I hope you understand why that is. 



> I've always remembered that, but I never could stop looking at everything of interest as though I were on a team along with archaeologists, working as an anthropologist as we worked to bridge the gap and make sense out of ancient civilization and its meaning for--and link to--modern man so that we could live up to what it means to be an evolving human being--still part animal yet with the potential to be fully human and therefore humane.


This is a very beautiful idea, and seems to reflect the archetypal content that is on some parts unconscious, yet a part of us.



Turi said:


> I'd like to apologise to @Gilead for being a little aggressive, didn't think I was at the time, but upon reflection, I was, simply the truth.
> 
> I read this and this and it's just crystal clear to me, that Ni as it's currently understood _is _my dominant function.. my responses in this thread so far have reflected a neglection of Fe (failure to be open to feedback from others), poor use of tertiary Ti (reluctance to consider changing opinion/stance even when faced with posts etc from people who are far more knowledgeable than myself on the subject) and pretty obvious inferior Se (impulsive posting, posting shit with literally nothing to support it etc).


That is a good analysis  

Apology accepted. I wasn't all that constructive all the time either and refused to change my own approach even though it could have advanced the convo so some of the fault was mine too, naturally.



> Still think Ni needs to be, and can be, demystified.
> 
> It's also interesting to find some of the Si doms I tagged earlier in the thread don't relate to Ni in the way that it's stereotyped and currently understood. Truly fascinating.
> I wholeheartedly believed it was simply being human, the imagery and symbolism being no more than human nature, apparently this just doesn't ring true for everyone the way I thought it would.
> ...


Don't be offended, but in the course of this discussion it seemed like you don't fully understand what sensing is, and what benefits there are to having certainty of perceptions and experiences. Maybe you try to intuitively understand sensing, but that is about as good as me trying to make "sense" out of intuition... you know.

The thing is, some sensors do take sensing for a granted even when completely reliant on it - but the reason we see intuition as mystical is because it deals with issues that are indirect and often impossible to verify, and having conviction in those things might seem odd or curious to us.

This doesn't mean we entirely reject intangible things or have a hostile attitude towards them, often on the contrary. But when I experience inner imagery I always see it in mystical terms because it seems to arise from nowhere, and I actually prefer it that way - for intuitives it is a natural and seamless part of their perception so there is no real reason to see it as mystical. Wouldn't this explain why you cannot see it as mystical?



> Wonder if it tells @Gilead she's been mentioned 4 times now, or does it just notify her of one time, since they're all in the same post?


Just once, I think


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Turi said:


> For the damn life of me, I can't picture not thinking along these lines, however to suggest it's possible to consciously perceive your unconscious is absurd.. outside of sleeping pills or deep meditation or something - intentionally putting yourself in a position to shift into that state of mind.


Most of people that I've talked to definitely do not think along these lines, or at least, not as much as I seem to do. Of course, I can't have assess to their brains to know for sure, but I've talked about this kind of thinking with friends and family before, and they can't relate (or relate very little) to that. For example, when my brother (who I type as and is tested as ESFP) and I watch a movie, he's much more keen to visual details in the movie than I am, he's much more likely to notice a continuity error or something like that on his first watch than I am. After having watched the movie, he usually recalls the story through visuals, remembering scenes with details. As for me, I usually pay more attention to what messages the movie are trying to bring, and its overall theme and ideas, I can picture those in my mind buch better than any kind of visual or sensory information. In short, it's like my brain glosses over all the ideas to focus on the main idea, whereas with by brother, he has to piece the details together to get to the main idea, it's not something that he naturally focus on.

What I meant by "perceiving the unconscious" is pulling out images and ideas directly from it, basically, get in touch with how the connections in your brain work - metacognition. I think I phrased this incorrectly, so sorry for that.



> The unconscious mind is definitely slower than the conscious mind, literally, the frequency of delta brain waves(unconscious mind) is 0-4hz. The frequency of alpha waves (conscious mind) is between 12-30hz.


Okay, that still doesn't change the fact that is Se who does most of the work to absorb raw data, not Ni. And that Ni is not the only function that you use to function since it's not realistic.



> I don't like that analogy re: the highway - when faced with that situation, which I'm sure we all have been many times, your options are A) slow down, try to make sense of it the best you can using your eyes to try make out what's going on, or B) try to pull over and wait it out - this is a real option where I'm from, the fog gets so thick you can't see a thing.
> 
> I don't believe trying to make sense of it has anything to do with Ni, I understand what he's trying to get at, but it's lacking, and I feel that analogies and whatnot, when related to typology, need to have alternate analogies to account for how other functions/types etc might perceive or deal with a situation, generally.
> I believe to be relevant they should be more holistic than that.


It was just an analogy meant to represent how Ni pulls ideas from the unconscious and use them to try to read into the future, it was not meant to represent how a person might realisticly react in that situation.

Okay, here is the problem with trying to "debunk" Ni: without Ni, the theory is incomplete.

Cognitive functions are composed of two dimensions: Introversion/Extroversion and Thinking/Feeling or Sensing/Intuition.

*Introversion* is related to focus on your inner self, your own state of mind. Introverts interpret data subjectively, with basis on their own state of mind, and how they perceive things (past experiences, personal feelings and motivations). In general, introverts are more introspective, self-focused and analytical, preferring depth rather than breadth (which can make them more inflexible in their thinking). I think this is something you can agree with, it's a noticeable difference in most people.

*Extroversion* is related to focus on the world beyond the self, events, activities, other people, facts, actions, etc. Extroverts interpret data according to external standards, with basis on how objective something is (not affected by personal bias). In general, extroverts are more engaged with the real world, more active and more fluid, preferring breadth rather than depth (constant stimuli).

Now there is Thinking/Feeling and Sensing/Intuition, I'll skip Thinking/Feeling because this is not what we are talking about.

Sensing is related to focus on details and sensory information, concrete data. Intuition is related to focus on abstract data, concepts, ideas and the like. I think I don't need to expand on this.

*Se* is composed of Extraversion + Sensing, absorbing concrete data objectively, with focus on external stimulus (which is how you get the adrenaline junkie stereotype).

*Si* is composed of Introversion + Sensing, interpreting concrete data subjectively, with focus on their own experiences and personal interpretation of such (which is how you get the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" stereotype, they rely a lot on their own memory).

*Ne* is composed of Extroversion + Intuition, absorbing abstract data objectively, with focus on external connections and possibilities provided by the real world (which is why they can appear to be "random", their thinking is focused on discovering as many different possibilities/ideas as possible).

*Ni* is composed of Introversion + Intuition, absorbing abstract data subjectively, with focus on their own experiences and personal interpretation of such (much like Si, the main difference is that it is concept-oriented).

If you take Ni out of the equation, there's going to be a clear hole in the theory. It doesn't make sense to believe in Si (or Introversion in general) and Ne (or Intuition in general) if you don't believe in Ni. The reason why Ni is so often associated with the unconscious is because _both_ Introversion and Intuition are related to the unconscious, it's as simple as that.

So, if you're not going to believe in Ni, just throw the whole Cognitive Functions theory out of the window, because it falls apart without it.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Mr Castelovania - I don't want to debunk Ni to the point where we remove it from typology theory altogether and expose it for complete BS. I want to dissect it and take apart the mystique.

@Gilead - thanks, and yes it would, but I just feel as though we can take it apart and link all of the visions, imagery and symbolism etc to science, and prove what is happening, proper reasons, not BS psychic reasons.

You're definitely correct in suggesting I don't understand what sensing is - not Si anyway - my understanding is basically all 'in theory' and doesn't feel anywhere near a complete picture of it. 

My wife is an ESFJ and I'm just dumbfounded at the things she pays attention to and remembers, I know Si isn't _just _memory, but it's connected, surely.
She will remember the butterflies on the boots someone was wearing a few months ago, she'll recall what they were talking about.. she can do an entire shop without a list (even though she writes it up and takes it).. I don't get it.

Si isn't even her dominant function and it just astounds me.

This is from an ISTJ on another forum I frequent: 



> They were trying to figure out why I was doing just mediocre in school, but had such in-depth knowledge and ability to apply the understand when given lots of room (i.e., not the school-room environment of the late 60's)
> 
> I remember hearing (through a closed door) about how I didn't fit their categories, and in observing me at work/asking followup on how I problem-solved, they realized that things they assumed were '_intuition_' were actually extremely fast recall/decision making based on facts I had learned as a kid (I was a voracious learner...read loads of my dad's and mom's college-level texts when I was 6, 7, 8).
> AND situations they had assumed I was doing judgment processes based in recall and application of rote-rules were actually when I was approaching a task from 2 or 3 viewpoints/disciplines which I knew nothing specifically about, applying analogies and doing _their _"intuition" thing, and comparing the outcomes then picking the one that fit either my or others' needs best.
> ...


Does it resonate with you, a little?


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Turi said:


> @Mr Castelovania - I don't want to debunk Ni to the point where we remove it from typology theory altogether and expose it for complete BS. I want to dissect it and take apart the mystique.


Okay. It's really hard to separate Ni's real descriptions from bullshit, so I understand. By the way, the way you're doing it really seems like a Ti kind of thinking, dissecting concepts until you reach its "core truth". I'm fairly convinced now that you're Ti-dom


----------



## Agent X (May 23, 2017)

My condolences that you have had to experience that @HallowedHydraNess.Your experience sometimes make me question the human race as a whole, and their collective intelligence in these kinds of situations and where we are heading with that mentality.



Mr Castelovania said:


> Okay. It's really hard to separate Ni's real descriptions from bullshit, so I understand. By the way, the way you're doing it really seems like a Ti kind of thinking, dissecting concepts until you reach its "core truth". I'm fairly convinced now that you're Ti-dom


Assuming the above is not an attempt at joking, I would also likely to concur with that assessment (I have pointed that out before). Also the fact that he is incapable of "seeing" other Ni-dominant's seems to lead to the fact. And the fact that he got <insert appropriate word/terminology here> when questioned, is almost an indicator of inferior Fe. No harm or malice is meant by this statement, just an observation.

The current issue with this that due to many people wanting to be typed as Ni dom, lead to over mystifying Ni, and as pointed above, lead to incorrect assumptions of it. I did rather say, that you can't view Ni without viewing either Fe or Te, as Ni is coloured through the *PERSPECTIVE* (the key-word in this scenario) of the extroverted judging function. Perhaps we should be focusing on the axes of Ni-Te or Ni-Fe? I believe if we do so, we could find the "definition" of what Ni really is. The most logical description of it at the current time can be described as a background processor of sorts.

Yet another novel way of looking at this, is we can disregard the whole sensing-intuition dichotomy and assume human beings as a whole, in certain situations (where demanded) use intuition, while other certain situations (when demanded) rely on sensing. If that were to happen, then we would assume that the individual would have a balanced sense of N/S and relatively well developed cognitively. Shouldn't we aspire instead of focusing on either the big picture, or the details, aspire to do both? If the idea could be entertained of course, but it is somewhat disregards the cognitive functions and Myers-Briggs as a whole theory.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

Turi said:


> thanks, and yes it would, but I just feel as though we can take it apart and link all of the visions, imagery and symbolism etc. to science, and prove what is happening, proper reasons, not BS psychic reasons.


That's fair enough, but since science isn't ever ready nor is it even infallible, I think just coming up with a definition that is sufficiently descriptive of what we think of as Ni is enough - as long as it isn't entirely bonkers.

I mean, proving Jung's ideas of the archetypes as valid would require evidence that what functions describe is innate. The idea of inherited psychological content sure is romantic, but how can that be reliably studied? More energy goes into proving that functions correlate with certain activity-patterns of the brain in the present moment.



> You're definitely correct in suggesting I don't understand what sensing is - not Si anyway - my understanding is basically all 'in theory' and doesn't feel anywhere near a complete picture of it.
> 
> My wife is an ESFJ and I'm just dumbfounded at the things she pays attention to and remembers, I know Si isn't _just _memory, but it's connected, surely.
> She will remember the butterflies on the boots someone was wearing a few months ago, she'll recall what they were talking about.. she can do an entire shop without a list (even though she writes it up and takes it).. I don't get it.
> ...


It could be just because she values those things for some reason and therefore takes notice.
Technically I don't even type as a "Si type" (but LSI in Socionics) but I pay attention to things too. Then be completely oblivious to other things if they don't catch my interest. I wouldn't need a shopping list as long as I have it planned in my head. If I haven't, no amount of lists can help me lol.



> This is from an ISTJ on another forum I frequent:
> Does it resonate with you, a little?


I was pretty similar as a kid, but reading a lot does not an intuitive make. I don't really create my own visions, but I loan from others as much as is useful, relevant or reliable.


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Agent X said:


> Assuming the above is not an attempt at joking, I would also likely to concur with that assessment (I have pointed that out before). Also the fact that he is incapable of "seeing" other Ni-dominant's seems to lead to the fact. And the fact that he got <insert appropriate word/terminology here> when questioned, is almost an indicator of inferior Fe. No harm or malice is meant by this statement, just an observation.


I don't want to use his supposed incapability of "seeing" dominant Ni in others as evidence because I don't deem it as reliable proof since human perspective is prone to all kinds of error in judgement (especially if it comes from a place of misconception). But yes, I do think that @Turi shows a lot of Ti, but also, I find Ni difficult to be perceived in others unless they talk openly about their own insights.



> The current issue with this that due to many people wanting to be typed as Ni dom, lead to over mystifying Ni, and as pointed above, lead to incorrect assumptions of it. I did rather say, that you can't view Ni without viewing either Fe or Te, as Ni is coloured through the *PERSPECTIVE* (the key-word in this scenario) of the extroverted judging function. Perhaps we should be focusing on the axes of Ni-Te or Ni-Fe? I believe if we do so, we could find the "definition" of what Ni really is. The most logical description of it at the current time can be described as a background processor of sorts.


You're right that Ni works differently based on your main Extroverted Judging function, e.g Ni+Fe is more insightful about people and society and Ni+Te is more attuned to how systems can improve over time. Either way, Ni still is Ni, and it still is possible to define it without the use of other functions to mud the waters. The one that makes the most sense to me is that Ni simply is intuition based on personal experience/inner perspective, i.e Intuition + Introversion. Of course, this implies a lot of things (such as Ni being correlated to the unconscious), but it is the base of all assumptions made about this function. Truthfully, there's not that much of a difference between Si and Ni in terms of theory, and both are equally misunderstood.



> Yet another novel way of looking at this, is we can disregard the whole sensing-intuition dichotomy and assume human beings as a whole, in certain situations (where demanded) use intuition, while other certain situations (when demanded) rely on sensing. If that were to happen, then we would assume that the individual would have a balanced sense of N/S and relatively well developed cognitively. Shouldn't we aspire instead of focusing on either the big picture, or the details, aspire to do both? If the idea could be entertained of course, but it is somewhat disregards the cognitive functions and Myers-Briggs as a whole theory.


I don't think that this idea contradicts the cognitive functions or the MBTI, I see it as the goal of them instead. If you rely too much on Intuition, you're an unbalanced individual, simple as that. We should aspire to become more like our opposites (in our case, ESFP).


----------



## BranchMonkey (Feb 23, 2017)

> Yet another novel way of looking at this, is we can disregard the whole sensing-intuition dichotomy and assume human beings as a whole, in certain situations (where demanded) use intuition, while other certain situations (when demanded) rely on sensing. If that were to happen, then we would assume that the individual would have a balanced sense of N/S and relatively well developed cognitively. Shouldn't we aspire instead of focusing on either the big picture, or the details, aspire to do both? If the idea could be entertained of course, but it is somewhat disregards the cognitive functions and Myers-Briggs as a whole theory.





> I don't think that this idea contradicts the cognitive functions or the MBTI, I see it as the goal of them instead. If you rely too much on Intuition, you're an unbalanced individual, simple as that. We should aspire to become more like our opposites (in our case, ESFP).


Read Jung and others well-versed in functions, and one thing they agree on is that certain functions operate at less full capacity or stay in the foreground at a younger age, and other functions, including the inferior for many people, develop as one ages, so an intelligent NiFe user at 12 (generalization) with less life experience is going to--or a healthy one certainly should, look different from a NiFe user at 30, then at 40, 50, 60, et cetera... until peak capacity of various functions, interactions, is reached, and aging, natural decline or decline because of disease states take place.

I don't think enough people take into consideration: environment, early and ongoing conditioning, and as I mentioned, gathering life experiences (and making sense of them) when thinking about and then asserting what any function or combination of functions look like--whether introverted or extraverted.

And I agree, of course, that unless someone shares--and in an articulate, comprehensive manner--how NiFe is perceived by and manifests for them, no one can evaluate its efficacy, or the theory surrounding it, which can be extrapolated to any other function or combination of functions.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

Agent X said:


> And the fact that he got <insert appropriate word/terminology here> when questioned, is almost an indicator of inferior Fe.


Hm. I've seen worse. From Ti/Se I would_ expect_ worse. I've seen INTPs have a similar response to what I think you're referring to here (indignation). But overall it seemed more like a typical NFJ existential crisis with Ti wanting clarity into it, so I agree with @Turi's own analysis of what took place.


----------



## Agent X (May 23, 2017)

HallowedHydraNess said:


> Read Jung and others well-versed in functions, and one thing they agree on is that certain functions operate at less full capacity or stay in the foreground at a younger age, and other functions, including the inferior for many people, develop as one ages, so an intelligent NiFe user at 12 (generalization) with less life experience is going to--or a healthy one certainly should, look different from a NiFe user at 30, then at 40, 50, 60, et cetera... until peak capacity of various functions, interactions, is reached, and aging, natural decline or decline because of disease states take place.
> 
> I don't think enough people take into consideration: environment, early and ongoing conditioning, and as I mentioned, gathering life experiences (and making sense of them) when thinking about and then asserting what any function or combination of functions look like--whether introverted or extraverted.
> 
> And I agree, of course, that unless someone shares--and in an articulate, comprehensive manner--how NiFe is perceived by and manifests for them, no one can evaluate its efficacy, or the theory surrounding it, which can be extrapolated to any other function or combination of functions.


It is on my list of things to read, perhaps it would be worth the investment. After all, knowledge does have a price, whether good or evil in nature. I have suspected as much of what you wrote about functions developing, but being young in my years, I am only up to the "stage" of developing my Te or Fi (however Fi is developed due to complications of a turbulent upbringing). As you progress further, do your Ni insights become keener and more pronounced as you age? In your sentence, peak age, I would assume your 40's would be an accurate assumption before the inevitable decline?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Agent X said:


> Assuming the above is not an attempt at joking, I would also likely to concur with that assessment (I have pointed that out before). Also the fact that he is incapable of "seeing" other Ni-dominant's seems to lead to the fact. And the fact that he got <insert appropriate word/terminology here> when questioned, is almost an indicator of inferior Fe. No harm or malice is meant by this statement, just an observation.


I don't want this thread to wind up about me, need to address this openly because I feel it's perhaps something others might like to chip their 2p in.

The reason for this is simple - typing people isn't a game of Snap - recognising your own dominant function in others is difficult, because it is simply common sense.
It is nothingness. Non-factors. It's just talk. Nothing out of the ordinary.

My Ni (as it's currently understood) is ridiculously unbalanced, where other people quote and draw attention to what they believe is Ni in type me threads, I see nothing out of the ordinary and feel an urge to jump in and tell people the same.
Obviously this is ridiculous, but it's kind of representative of how Ni works.

Ni is all about subjective reality. It is not concerned with objective reality.
Ni as a dominant function is preoccupied with itself, it is self-absorbed - it pays more attention to ones thoughts and inner mind, than it does to the real world, current happenings.

This is why an Ni user like myself has difficulty _truly _comprehending the various ways other people perceive the world - it doesn't make sense - I can _understand _how other people view the world, other peoples perspectives on life etc etc, but to _completely _accept that other peoples minds don't work the same way as mine feels almost impossible, it's absolutely fascinating.

Now because Ni is a "truth" seeking function (subjective truth, albeit) - it's basically just ticking away seeking to synthesise information into one singular perspective - I want to understand and have a firm grip on how everyone elses mind works.

This aspect of Ni is likely the reason I want to _demystify _Ni - it's an attempt to strip away the mystique and twist Ni into something that is a universal fit - something everyone experiences and uses - something that is not unique - we are all the same.
At some point here, Ti-Fe is coming in to play, the whole "break things down, understand them, apply this understanding to other things on a universal level" is decidedly Ti.

...

Here's my like.. half a cent on Ni. Nowhere near comprehensive.

I believe Ni is a conscious process, perhaps there are things going on in the background linked to the subconscious, I don't know, but to me, it's conscious, I am actively perceiving and following imagery and symbolism in my head, most of the time.
This is accompanied by mind-chatter that doesn't STFU.

This is where it starts to make sense that Se is the perfect inferior function for an Ni dominant - consumed by their own self-awareness, absorbed by their own inner mind - the Ni dominant can not be as aware of the outside world.

When the Ni dominant is perceiving symptoms of a flu as if the person is a Jenga tower, they are completely immersed in their own thoughts - it is this state of mind where the Ni dom practically lives - they aren't as in touch with their senses, smell, sight, hearing etc - they won't notice these things in real time.

While following the symbolism and imagery, they won't notice the crow harping on in the background, they won't notice the scent of a bushfire, they won't notice things happening right before their very own eyes.

The Ni dom isn't "present" in the real world - however, they most definitely perceive it - they might have imagery of a crow later down the track, they might just have that god damn sound of the crow going on and on in their head, and wonder why the shit they're hearing this - thoughts along the lines of "what's up with the crow?", they might realise somebody took something from right under their nose... hours after it's happened.


This, to me, _is _slowness. This is precisely "taking ages to absorb information" - though I'm accepting that it's the reality of being an Ni dom - it certainly reflects my life anyway, but maybe I'm just a dumb prick.

I imagine an Se dom would think this is almost a disability - this is dopiness extraordinaire. It's stupid.
It's letting someone take something from right before your eyes. It's taking 5 minutes to realise the room you're in is on fire.
It's a severely delayed reaction to a blood-curdling scream from next door.

I completely understand how it appears to other people.
It's just difficult to accept that not everyone is wired the same way.
I find this stuff truly intriguing, to learn how other people perceive the world. It's just amazing.

I'm out of time and this post is nowhere near complete, didn't wrap it up, probably seems pretty random but eh, what can I do.
*hits post*


----------



## BranchMonkey (Feb 23, 2017)

Agent X said:


> It is on my list of things to read, perhaps it would be worth the investment. After all, knowledge does have a price, whether good or evil in nature. I have suspected as much of what you wrote about functions developing, but being young in my years, I am only up to the "stage" of developing my Te or Fi (however Fi is developed due to complications of a turbulent upbringing). As you progress further, do your Ni insights become keener and more pronounced as you age? In your sentence, peak age, I would assume your 40's would be an accurate assumption before the inevitable decline?


Ni developing (same for other functions) is going to differ for each person to some or to a great degree based not only on the individual's propensity for maturation, but on stresses and how each of us handle them, as well as whether the stresses are what I call 'a pile drive' or come more in line with our being able to handle, examine, learn from them, and strengthen our functions, or succumb--if only for a time, to the stresses and turn toward the unhealthy coping mechanisms, many of which we learned from watching role models when we were growing up cope (over-indulging in food, liquor, and so on... or trying to control more and more, and become somewhat to very rigid, perhaps enraged--turned outward or inward).

My Ni was clear to others (although they had no idea that's what it was) when I was toddler home from my second foster care gig.

I was forced to return to my biological family, and it didn't occur to my biological mother that I didn't think of her as my mom--not until I woke up from nightmares screaming for my mom and when she came I said, "No, I want my real mom!"

She said that when her brothers came to visit, my uncles as she put it (who were no kin to my mind), I insulted every one of them but one.

The only one I did not insult, she said, was the only one who was not violent and had not tried getting sexual with her, and she was amazed that I could at three years old pick out the 'good one.'

Now, at three, all I could do was indicate I didn't like how each one looked, so I said of the brother who had slit a man's throat, "I don't like you." To the one who had thrown a man down a flight of stairs for waking him up by banging on his apartment door looking for one of my aunts, "You're ugly, you have a big nose." And to the third who would much later (when I was 17) try bribing me into being sexual with him, I said bluntly, "You're a cripple."

Every insult was accompanied by assurance, no hesitation--and I did not have facts about them to back up my opinions--not for years yet. 

I also didn't go by how they acted with me at that time, or around me either (again, at that time) because the one who had thrown a man down a flight of stairs for waking him up out of a drunken stupor was very charismatic, and my ESTP older sister--and many others (he married five times) liked him very much.

The crippled uncle had been career military, and people around me treated him with deference.

The one uncle I did not insult was generous, introverted, took his anger out on himself--again, something I would learn only later.

To me, *this is Ni *manifesting very early.


I was thinking last night about how late my *development of Si* was, and how impaired it still is--if I understand Si well enough:

It used to take me months, sometimes years, to recognize and have what I actually felt become conscious... underneath what I thought, and had been taught (and believed that I ought to feel). 

As I got older, yes, by my 40s (but not in an expert manner) I had narrowed the time it took to recognize what I was feeling to weeks, then days... 

Last night, my husband said I've changed so much that sometimes it only takes me minutes to recognize what I'm feeling.

It helps when I am able to come to him and talk it out. 

If he interrupts me, I get irritated or angry (depending on how stressed I am, how much I need to recognize my true feelings so I can adjust my behavior), and I will say--as he interrupts me, "I'm not done; I'm still talking!"

When he waits then, which is usually, I talk it out, but I often say the opposite of what I feel or I go general--seemingly off-topic, swirling around what I'm struggling to 'allow' myself to articulate.

My husband has to be patient, because when I do get down to it, and get it out, I am calm, ready to put an action in place, and then I am no longer preoccupied. I then do what my husband calls, "See him."


I've had frightening experiences when what I thought, asserted, was sure I felt about a situation, e.g. when my son's best friend picked him up, turned him almost upside down and threw him to the ground. It could have killed him, and it happened back around the time that "Infamous" locked eyes with me then followed me from the park).

I patiently explained to my son who came to me in tears why his friend had done what he had:

His mother had recently died to whom he was very attached. He was (and is) a black man who grew up on the south side of Chicago, the youngest of four boys (no sisters), growing up hard and hurt by the older brothers, and of course, going through the usual tough times of living in poverty, going to poor schools and so on--not much like my son's childhood as the only one, my son--no siblings to hurt him, and so forth.

After the incident with Infamous, I was enraged, walked the neighborhood looking for him... carrying a serrated hunting knife my son had given me, along with a three-in-one spray.

One afternoon a light-skinned black man who looked nothing like Infamous was walking toward me on a residential sidewalk, and apparently the rage was palpable because he looked scared, and I saw it, then said, "You're fine, it's me, I've got a lot on my mind," and he immediately relaxed, smiled.

I remember thinking, "Why did I respond like that, he looks nothing like Infamous--who was better looking, younger, taller..."

Later that day, I found myself in the kitchen, no idea how I had come to be in the kitchen holding a box cutter in my hand when I thought I had gone in there to make myself something to eat. 

Then it came suddenly to the surface and I knew what I felt: Rage at my son's best friend. 

The light-skinned older man I had passed and reassured? 

He looked like my son's best friend, and it triggered what I actually felt about what he had done. It had taken me down underneath the intellectualizing and still I didn't know until I stood, confused, in the kitchen with the box cutter, why...

I shared all of this with my therapist later, after I shared it with my husband, and said the words I needed to say, "I love my son, and [insert his best friend's name here] could have killed him!"

That would seem such an obvious thing to have felt at the time my son told me what happened, but I was conflicted by so much... 

And I knew what those conflicts where, including how my mother had arranged my marriage to a sociopath (the father of my son... who would later, the same time period, be released from jail after waiting for police to find the evidence they needed to convict him of murdering two men over what amounted to $50. 

The crime scene had been trampled, mistakes made, no one wealthy, i.e. worthy of the expert, careful work it would have taken to find and convict the one(s) who did it, and so my ex-husband got away with the 'alleged' murders of an old man and his middle-aged son innocent of everything but opening the door to him).

I don't know if this answers your question. It may take some sorting through it.

The easy answer is "Yes, we will strengthen our functions, especially the inferior ones as we mature." 

The more complicated, realistic answer is, "It depends on many variables."


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

Turi said:


> When the Ni dominant is perceiving symptoms of a flu as if the person is a Jenga tower, they are completely immersed in their own thoughts - it is this state of mind where the Ni dom practically lives - they aren't as in touch with their senses, smell, sight, hearing etc - they won't notice these things in real time.
> 
> While following the symbolism and imagery, they won't notice the crow harping on in the background, they won't notice the scent of a bushfire, they won't notice things happening right before their very own eyes.


I also experience this but I do not have Ni. I'm always called scatterbrained and not aware of my surroundings all the time. However, while I am being scatterbrained, I am not just blanking out. It's more like my mind is preoccupied with something all the time...memories, random relations from one thing to another, random daydreaming. What are your thoughts about possessing this "trait" and its relation/correlation to cognitive functions? Would you say Ne works this way too?


----------



## Agent X (May 23, 2017)

HallowedHydraNess said:


> Ni developing (same for other functions) is going to differ for each person to some or to a great degree based not only on the individual's propensity for maturation, but on stresses and how each of us handle them, as well as whether the stresses are what I call 'a pile drive' or come more in line with our being able to handle, examine, learn from them, and strengthen our functions, or succumb--if only for a time, to the stresses and turn toward the unhealthy coping mechanisms, many of which we learned from watching role models when we were growing up cope (over-indulging in food, liquor, and so on... or trying to control more and more, and become somewhat to very rigid, perhaps enraged--turned outward or inward).
> 
> My Ni was clear to others (although they had no idea that's what it was) when I was toddler home from my second foster care gig.
> 
> ...


I'm deeply sorry to hear that. Lately I been noticing how I think in images/abstractions/symbolism, I just think I finally reached the age where I stop "trying on" new functions. (In my youth, I was an INTP, now towards my later years, I appear to have switched cognitively to an INTJ).


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Me too. When i don't think too much about it nor focus it, i solve the problem easily. 

Like this week. I have a bug fix assigned to me and it's been already one week and there's lots of problems with it.

I'm new to the scripting language I'm using so i always consult my team lead. 

Fine. It's actually Lotusscript. 
So I'm new to that bullshit. 

So there's this problem regarding with copying all the files from one db to another (by date period) 

It's already working but the problem is, on the original code, they used the CopyToDatabase method. The problem with that shit is that only the views are copied, and not the folders. 

So my TL said i should use ".putIntoFolder" method.

So i have used it.. But there's actually some problems like i have to loop twice because i have to access all the folders in db.VIEWS

What happened before was they're accessing every documents.

I solved it, but the copying of files takes a lot of time.


My head really aches i took a leave lol. XD 

Then when i came back.. 
I realized that this method, ".copyAllItems" can be used to copy both folders and views.

So i just have to loop once.

There. Problem solved.

Glad i took a sick leave.
Maybe i have Ni too.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

@HallowedHydraNess: I have a similar (although much smaller) experience from my childhood. My mom wrote in my baby diary that I was always very friendly to everyone, except one guy. Whenever that person came in the door I would always just start crying. I don't think my mom ever found out what was going on with that person, but it's weird how some of us just seem to draw these quick conclusions about people, even at an extremely young age. 

I would be very interested in seeing a large-scale experiment where young children are observed and typed based on their earliest expressions of type. These children could be interviewed every few years to try and find out if their traits remain consistent through life. 
Kind of a tangent to the whole thread, but it's a common thought I keep having.


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

Agent X said:


> Perhaps why I admire the socionics system so much. It has the personalities "subtypes" despite classifying the person as an introvert. Let's take INTP (INTJ Myers-briggs). *The two subtypes are LII-Ni, and LII-Te,* both different (I resonate strongly with the Ni one), even though you are introverted, you can still have either Ni or Te as your dominant function (perhaps I read that wrong). I do not overly believe in the fact that an extrovert leads with an extroverted function and vice versa. For instance if you were an ambivert, you would have a very hard time determining whether you would fall under the introverted or extroverted category when determining your Myers-Briggs type.


I apologize for the nitpicking, but the two subtypes are LII-Ti and LII-Ne since LII is TiNe (thus MB INTP=socionics INTj/LII).
Alpha quadra is Ne, Ti, Si, and Fe valuers (so MB xSFJs and xNTPs).


EDIT: Disregard this ENTIRE post, my apologies, I just got to this exchange:


Agent X said:


> My apologies, I mean't to say ILI instead of LII. But it's good to see my analogies make sense, and not completely abstract/weird.



Lol, sorry.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Drecon said:


> @HallowedHydraNess: I have a similar (although much smaller) experience from my childhood. My mom wrote in my baby diary that I was always very friendly to everyone, except one guy. Whenever that person came in the door I would always just start crying. I don't think my mom ever found out what was going on with that person, but it's weird how some of us just seem to draw these quick conclusions about people, even at an extremely young age.
> 
> I would be very interested in seeing a large-scale experiment where young children are observed and typed based on their earliest expressions of type. These children could be interviewed every few years to try and find out if their traits remain consistent through life.
> Kind of a tangent to the whole thread, but it's a common thought I keep having.


Yeah, sounds like a good idea to me.

I was weird in the same way, every time a certain someone would come over, or we'd go there, I'd voice my concerns.. openly stated even at 3 years old that I didn't like him, punched him in the face one time "out of the blue".

Later, we found out he'd been molesting his daughters for years, amongst other things.

I just knew he was a piece of shit.

Also super weird but I just magically knew what room my grandpa died in one time we went to the hospital where he passed away.
I didn't know how he passed away or anything, again, I was 3. 
Just pointed the room out and said "that's where grandpa xxx died". :/

That sort of thing is how I was as a kid.
Used to creep people out.
And I could see auras until I was about 20 or so.

My mum would actually have people over and ask me what colour their aura was.
Sounds kinda like exploitation in hindsight haha.

My mum used to rely on my intuition with regards to who to hang out with etc. She'd just flat out ask me what I thought of them etc.
She started that when I was like 3.

Kinda crazy but, I was never wrong.


I feel that heightened intuition (general everyday sense of the word) sorta faded away after I got to about 20.


Have you got any other similar stories to that guy you didn't like?


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

Drecon said:


> @HallowedHydraNess: I have a similar (although much smaller) experience from my childhood. My mom wrote in my baby diary that I was always very friendly to everyone, except one guy. Whenever that person came in the door I would always just start crying. I don't think my mom ever found out what was going on with that person, but it's weird how some of us just seem to draw these quick conclusions about people, even at an extremely young age.
> 
> I would be very interested in seeing a large-scale experiment where young children are observed and typed based on their earliest expressions of type. These children could be interviewed every few years to try and find out if their traits remain consistent through life.
> Kind of a tangent to the whole thread, but it's a common thought I keep having.




Oh, on the topic of childhood, this is actually really interesting (because Freud + Beebe's model and the interaction of functional development with the psychosexual stages of development throughout your childhood). I also think this should be interesting for understanding your dominant function and kindred types (I'll explain more further after I illustrate this data point). 


My parents said that I was EXTREMELY phlegmatic in childhood. I didn't play with toys---I played with random things. ie I wasn't really that interested in dolls or cars or whatnot. I liked playing with "real" objects that were not intended to be toys-----spoons, chairs, phones, whatever I could get my hands on. 

Both my parents fondly describe how 'unflappable' I was in childhood. My dad always likes to say how I never cried, and I never caused any problems--they were 'blessed' with an 'easy'/'good' baby to deal with. I was essentially born very non-reactive. There's a cultural factor regarding word choice here, but my mother described it as me being a very "mature" baby----I was very calm and didn't make a fuss about anything.

I was very quiet in general----I still am. While these tendencies were rewarded in my family, they were punished at school with teachers who insisted that I talk more. I still have my "report cards" from primary school, and my teacher (who appeared to dislike me for whatever reason) was very bothered and perceived my disposition as an "undeveloped personality". She disliked how non-verbal I was. I was put in a special education course because she thought that perhaps my English wasn't good (I am a native English speaker-----it's just that my parents were immigrants). I was put in an ESL special education program due to this assumption, simply because this teacher was so perturbed/unsettled by my disposition. 

@Gilead Do you know what you were like as a child? I ask because you, too, are a Ti-dominant and if psychological type is inherent and have a biological basis (like other aspects in psychology), perhaps these perceptions of ITP, ENP, etc. children share some commonality? Or perhaps not?


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

Khadroma said:


> My parents said that I was EXTREMELY phlegmatic in childhood. I didn't play with toys---I played with random things. ie I wasn't really that interested in dolls or cars or whatnot. I liked playing with "real" objects that were not intended to be toys-----spoons, chairs, phones, whatever I could get my hands on.
> 
> Both my parents fondly describe how 'unflappable' I was in childhood. My dad always likes to say how I never cried, and I never caused any problems--they were 'blessed' with an 'easy'/'good' baby to deal with. I was essentially born very non-reactive. There's a cultural factor regarding word choice here, but my mother described it as me being a very "mature" baby----I was very calm and didn't make a fuss about anything.
> 
> I was very quiet in general----I still am. While these tendencies were rewarded in my family, they were punished at school with teachers who insisted that I talk more. I still have my "report cards" from primary school, and my teacher (who appeared to dislike me for whatever reason) was very bothered and perceived my disposition as an "undeveloped personality". She disliked how non-verbal I was. I was put in a special education course because she thought that perhaps my English wasn't good (I am a native English speaker-----it's just that my parents were immigrants). I was put in an ESL special education program due to this assumption, simply because this teacher was so perturbed/unsettled by my disposition.


This is interesting because I was detached, "mature"/easy maybe as well, somehow distanced from other children especially in interaction; in a sense I shared your curiousity towards objects but also took that approached to social situations. 

I cannot remember whether my independence caused this, or whether I was forced to become more independent because of this - but I was definitely out of "sync" in a curious way I haven't obsereved for other people (but who knows?). Some abilities were just absent, but I was also quick to learn the rule-based ways of survival (though never _adapting, _really).

However later I had moments of becoming extreme problem or burden really via reactivity, impulsive, volatile, forceful and related issues... and would say, "choleric" really. Similar to ESI friend of mine about the same age (where we would have reactions to external pressure applied to us); whereas you sound similar to a LII I knew from early childhood to late teens (where there were issues related to emotional stress mostly but quite phelgmatic and gentle otherwise). But this again is a very small sample and I am looking for commonalities and differences quite purposefully.


----------

