# Why Ni Seems Mystical



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

_For the purposes of this post, I'll be using the term "lead," or "leading" to refer to any function that is in the first or second place for a particular type (e.g. INTJs' leading functions are Ni and Te)._


To understand why many often see Introverted Intuition as mystical, it's important to look at how some of the different types use reason and memory to understand the world around them. 

Lead Si users, for example, have detailed stores of information. It's not always natural for them to tell you why something is true, but they can certainly show you who said it was true, even perhaps with a when and a how. This makes demonstrating reasoning in debate something of a challenge for some Si leading types, but that weakness does not diminish their ability to reason.

Lead Se users are similar in that they have little trouble gathering and utilizing information, but, depending on their other functions, they may - like the lead Si types - have difficulty in demonstration of reasoning. 

Lead Ni users have a different weakness that may not be apparent at first glance: They often have trouble understanding why something is true. This may sound like nonsense; after all, the Ni-Te variations in particular have little difficulty in formulating a rationalization for why something is true.

But formulating a rationalization is not necessarily the same as utilizing facts. The key is in the leading use of Ni. Ni, in essence, synthesizes, summarizes, and assimilates new information into a conglomeration of knowledge and understanding. Ni doesn't know the mathematical proof for why 2+2=4 - it just knows that somewhere along the line, the user of the function decided that whatever information he or she had gathered was sufficient to believe that two plus two is equal to four. In this case, the credibility seems obvious. I mean, who doesn't believe that 2+2=4? But what if we start getting into more complex reasoning? 

I'll give you an example. I was playing an online game once that gave rewards for killing these particular enemies that spawned. One enemy had different "phases" it went through and you could only get the reward for a particular phase by participating in that phase. Due to some past experience, perhaps, with similar enemies, I decided to believe that I could get the reward from the last phase because I had participated in the phase before it. I disagreed with someone on whether I would get the reward and I tested it. I was wrong.

Why did I believe I would be right? If you asked me now, I could give several rationalizations, but none of them are rooted in solid memories of past experiences that would confirm my reasoning. All I had was a sense that I was right and a mission to prove it.

How does this translate to Ni looking mystical? When I tested my understanding in that game situation, I didn't truly know anything one way or another until I got more information. Once I had that information, I was able to assimilate it into what I already knew and get a new understanding. 

But imagine if I had been right. Imagine if I had tested my belief about the enemy and the reward, and proven the other person wrong. The proof would have been in the demonstration and it would have reinforced what I already thought, but the reasoning still would have been missing. The credibility would have been missing. 

My understanding of the situation would have looked, for all intents and purposes, like I had just pulled the information out of the air and somehow gotten lucky about whether it was correct information. This appearance of a mystical source of information can even trick the Ni users themselves. The only defense I've experienced is being able to trace an intuitive insight back to its source.

For example, if I look at a multiple choice question that asks, "Which if the following is not a state in the US?" and then it lists, "Wyoming, Kentucky, Washington, and Canada," I know at a glance that Canada is not a state (as would most people who know anything about US states). But just like the math example, imagine if it was a more complicated question and I still had a flash of insight on a particular answer. In the state example, I can easily trace back my reasoning to the fact that somewhere along the line, I learned that Canada is considered a country, and that it's not a state in the US; because of the way the question is phrased, I already have the answer. If I couldn't trace the reasoning back, I would be relying - like in the online game example - on what people might call a "hunch" (which, if you've been following the thought train, is basically a synthesized version of what I remember to be true). And like that example, I could easily be wrong.

Do you trust your Ni? It's hard not to if you lead with it. But you don't have to rely on a seemingly mystical source; if you can trace the synthesized conclusion back to its source, you can, to some degree, test your own credibility.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

I can see what you are getting at since I have almost as high Ni as Ne... And it is ALWAYS a good thing to -once in a while at least - check your own circuits for flaws and self deception. 

But isnt this part of the Judging thing? As an Ne-dom and P then I just see possibilities, and my other cognitives rule out the ones with potential or the few/one useful in the context. I do not attach emotionally to my solutions normally, as I know there are many ways to reach the goal: I just switch to next strategy. My experiences with NJs have made me believe that there is in fact a NEED to rule stuff out, take them out of the equation, to simplify. I believe I too, do this to a degree. And we all have to, but in varying degree. NJs are considered quite stubborn.... And arent INFPs too? As types go, ENTPs are very MESSY, and I have heard that we do not need much outer structure. Perhaps we Ps are better equipped to read the entire scene that others (perception-wise)? Bigger funnel? Setting Goals, master plans and following them is also a way of getting structure and "ruling out". P procrastination or "flukes" could be because of our "Openness" to possibilities. Just different sides of the same coin.

But sometimes I have difficulty differentiating what cognitive does what and creates what behavior. It is not Truth either, but more a useful generalization.

EDIT: A little bit off topic, sorry for that. In general I too believe that Ni-users are just LESS aware of how it concludes stuff compared to Ne. But paired with J i believe that the conclusion, no matter the "traceability of it", will have stronger investment and NEED to be true. At least until proven otherwise.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

It's mystical probably in how it reveals potential to someone about something/someone - not really in it's actual process though, which might be able to be explained scientifically on some level (like, "seeing into" something - that might make a lot of sense on the evolutionary level - Wikipedia's info supports Jung's idea of sensation repression contributing to this - this might have scientific credibility).


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

If literally everyone used Ni heavily it would probably seem a lot less mystical. Perhaps it would even seem banal, or just a footnote in what it means to be a human being, being indistinguishable as distinct element from any other component of our lives.

On the other hand, if Si style learning was never capitalized on, and heavy Si user types were far rarer perhaps Si would relatively be the more mystical of the introverted irrational functions.

Even if the functions were studied and understood, perhaps scarcity would be sufficient to render them with a mystical quality. But perhaps not.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, Si and Ni, to Jung, were both fairly esoteric and peculiar phenomena of consciousness. Se would be the more practical, gritty, hands-on sensation (sort of that person who seems very taken by impulsive stimuli of the moment for sort of gritty, down-to-Earth reasons quite often). Si and Ni both kind of work toward the same general motivation (the person being very remote from what's considered mainstream knowledge - the people who gravitate toward the "other possibility"), but in totally different ways. Different people with those two functions often just don't really get drawn into the others' way of seeing the "other possibility." They might just kind of miss the soul or quirk of each other's perspectives, because they don't need the other function to do the same thing. They might just not get each other at all on that level


----------



## international (Jun 13, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> To understand why many often see Introverted Intuition as mystical, it's important to look at how some of the different types use reason and memory to understand the world around them.


What do you consider mystical, OP?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I have a very hard time relating to Si.

I mean, conceptually I can try to imagine it, but I can't _relate_ to it completely. I can relate only insofar as I understand that an introverted sensor is an introvert like me, and then try to imagine what that must be like applied to _concrete sensations_. It's difficult, but I can sort of manage the gist I think.

I know it when I see it though, you can really see it distinctly the way it pairs up with inferior Ne and you get that pessimistic negative outlook coming from unconscious Ne, so whenever they are faced with a situation they can't personally relate to from their own experiences, they tend to not to be trusting or optimistic. Instead they read into the situation only until they can predict a bad end, and that's it, they shut it down right then and there. Whereas with a Ni type, it's the other way around and it's like that with sensation. When it comes to "proving" an intuition by nailing it down in the world of sensations, it feels either like a chore, something unnecessary, or often completely impossible when it comes to the truly abstract insights I get sometimes that just make no sense even to me. So the result is the same kind of pessimism and negativity towards sensation. I can't even be bothered, and there's this sense of dread, of "knowing" that I'm not going to be able to find anything in reality to qualify my insights to anyone other than myself. In fact, if I let myself get caught up in that apathy it starts to go the other way and become a kind of obsession with finding some piece of data to "back up" my intuition. This is what I assume in common parlance is what people mean when they talk about being "in the grip of your inferior function."


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

Ni is mystical for those who do not understand it.


> I'll give you an example. I was playing an online game once that gave rewards for killing these particular enemies that spawned. One enemy had different "phases" it went through and you could only get the reward for a particular phase by participating in that phase. Due to some past experience, perhaps, with similar enemies, I decided to believe that I could get the reward from the last phase because I had participated in the phase before it. I disagreed with someone on whether I would get the reward and I tested it. I was wrong.
> 
> Why did I believe I would be right? If you asked me now, I could give several rationalizations, but none of them are rooted in solid memories of past experiences that would confirm my reasoning. All I had was a sense that I was right and a mission to prove it.


It seems to be flawed logic rather than Ni.



> But imagine if I had been right. Imagine if I had tested my belief about the enemy and the reward, and proven the other person wrong. The proof would have been in the demonstration and it would have reinforced what I already thought, but the reasoning still would have been missing. The credibility would have been missing.


Proof is proof, you would llikely be able to reason as of why you were right and then you would have gotten credibility.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

international said:


> What do you consider mystical, OP?


I'll give you a definition off the cuff: Mystical - without observable cause or source. Not pertaining to something that can be observed or quantified by anyone (e.g. seers, prophets, etc.).



Abraxas said:


> I have a very hard time relating to Si.
> 
> I mean, conceptually I can try to imagine it, but I can't _relate_ to it completely. I can relate only insofar as I understand that an introverted sensor is an introvert like me, and then try to imagine what that must be like applied to _concrete sensations_. It's difficult, but I can sort of manage the gist I think.
> 
> I know it when I see it though, you can really see it distinctly the way it pairs up with inferior Ne and you get that pessimistic negative outlook coming from unconscious Ne, so whenever they are faced with a situation they can't personally relate to from their own experiences, they tend to not to be trusting or optimistic. Instead they read into the situation only until they can predict a bad end, and that's it, they shut it down right then and there. Whereas with a Ni type, it's the other way around and it's like that with sensation. When it comes to "proving" an intuition by nailing it down in the world of sensations, it feels either like a chore, something unnecessary, or often completely impossible when it comes to the truly abstract insights I get sometimes that just make no sense even to me. So the result is the same kind of pessimism and negativity towards sensation. I can't even be bothered, and there's this sense of dread, of "knowing" that I'm not going to be able to find anything in reality to qualify my insights to anyone other than myself. In fact, if I let myself get caught up in that apathy it starts to go the other way and become a kind of obsession with finding some piece of data to "back up" my intuition. This is what I assume in common parlance is what people mean when they talk about being "in the grip of your inferior function."


Well said.



Acerbusvenator said:


> Ni is mystical for those who do not understand it.
> 
> It seems to be flawed logic rather than Ni.


_Seems to be_ is a great example of Ni at work. You undoubtedly picked up on the logic of the story alone, which doesn't include all the relevant details because I am forgetful of them and thus will not hold up under scrutiny. Think of it as nothing more than a scribbled sketch of an elaborate idea.



Acerbusvenator said:


> Proof is proof, you would llikely be able to reason as of why you were right and then you would have gotten credibility.


If and only if I had had the presence of mind to trace back my reasoning to its source, which is - as you are no doubt familiar - not a concrete process.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think it might seem mystical as well, because it's ownership of the non-experienced alternatives to outer possibility presented - it becomes the possibilities of subjects that influence their outer approaches in ways that work, because there's more to look into about them that can influence and/or change the conventions of the object for this reason - I don't think any of the other introverted functions can have that much influence on the object as introverted intuition - the fact that it shapes the outer object without any kind of rational limit is unusual (but certainly not "hocus pocus" to the Ni dom - I think lower Ni types, like aux - inferior might view Ni as sort of surreal and completely out there (the aux. ones tend to show some ownership of it though, tert. might at times as well, especially older people), but the Ni dom might see it as the realest thing on Earth, due to inferior sensation - meeting reality with intuition is closer to it in a primal way than re-inventing it via sense perceptions).


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I have a hard time telling the difference between Si and Ni. I guess it's just that Jung said things about Si being about taking the objective value out of an object and turning it subjective. And then, to me, when Jung talks about those mental images that Ni users get, I see that is being the same thing--Ni is just using the image to carry subjective value (and other information).

Ni does seem to popularly be seen as more mystical. But when I read Jung's description of Si I feel like it's just as mystical. 

I get mental images like Jung described, but I thought everyone did. I also get into states where I view things the way that Jung described Si users to view them. I don't think I know how to differentiate the two yet.

Edit: and I kind of agree with what OP is saying about Ni being something that is not yet analyzed. Like, I consider it to be when I come up with some metaphor or example of something, and that example strikes true to some people (including me). Then, I have to unlock the reasoning behind it by using some other function. I have to analyze it to make sense.


----------



## Doom (Oct 25, 2010)

When it comes to Jung in general I have a lot of ideas, theories and the like but I have a bad time presenting it which is why I don't post much and spend a lot of time just reading through. When I was younger I was more sure of myself but as growing older it started to feel more like I was often just making assumptions and getting frustrated when people ask for my reasoning because it was all internal, in addition I use Ti making my logic more of a personal thing and my Fe wasn't as good at proving my point in some areas.

Ni to me is just how my mind works but its not something I really present and you probably wouldn't notice unless you got to know me. It seems rather simple to me unless there is something missing. We think of the answer first then find evidence to support our idea. Because we are introverted we process it without much external evidence so it is seen as mystical but when you present your reasoning's then people become more understanding.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Personally, Ni is kind of like an endless source of irrationality that I have far too much faith in the potential of (but I dunno, I really tend to be compelled by the "coincidences" in my life - sometimes, the most incredible things happen with relation to what's on your mind and your personal circumstances that you just have to wonder...). It's when it's up against the sensation sphere that it can really be something, indeed (I swear I've had one too many moments in life when trusting my hunches about who I will get along and how I will are basically always right, but acting against them, the consequences are not good on a lot of levels - this extends to a lot of things - going with the superficial factors of a situation doesn't often land me in a good place without regards to intuition (or at best, judgment).


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

meltedsorbet said:


> I have a hard time telling the difference between Si and Ni. I guess it's just that Jung said things about Si being about taking the objective value out of an object and turning it subjective. And then, to me, when Jung talks about those mental images that Ni users get, I see that is being the same thing--Ni is just using the image to carry subjective value (and other information).




Part of the thing is there's only a real cookie-cutter differentiation of what sensation/intuition you're seeing through often if you're an actual dominant in S or N.

I've pondered this very thing, and sort of been considering if I'm a Ti-dom with tons of Si going on. I don't think my perceiving preference is totally differentiated as Se-Ni v. Ne-Si, but it seems the level to which my sensing is introverted might suggest a strong Si seeing through a vastly less strong Ne.
The big difference in the two is that Ni truly suppresses the sensory details and thus I think in practice, Ni-doms get hunches which seem to come "from nowhere" since they are so inclined to suppress S, whilst Si will not register them exactly as they objectively were, but is very concerned with those details in-so-much-as it registers the sensory experience in detail in some esoteric fashion.


----------



## gambit (Jun 24, 2010)

Ni is a function that perceives relationships, connections, and patterns between various things. These things can not be proven or disproven because they can not be wrong or right; they are simply perceived and changing as they become less relevant. By subjective though, I'm not just referring to looking inward and thinking about stuff internally because introversion colors reality, albeit subjectively. Rather then, I'm using subjective to deal with "why" things happen and objective that deals with "how" things happen. Hopefully this is a little more helpful than using the vague words of 'subjective' and 'objective' and makes clear what I mean.

Metaphors and archetypes then are all various ways that Ni colors the world that they see (by explaining why things happens) and helps guide their sensation function (Se). The difference then between say Ni and Ti is that what Ni sees isn't set in stone and is a transient understanding of why things are occurring in a situation, changing the understanding as circumstances change, while Ti sees or attempts to set things in stone as some kind of rule, standard, or absolute truth that also explains why things are occurring. Ti is in effect, a judgment about reality, whereas Ni truly is a perception of reality.

Ni then is quite mystical because the way it perceives isn't something you can pinpoint as it's always changing and seeing reality in different ways, indulging in the creativity that the unconscious brings forth, perceiving why things are happening as they are, while not judging them. Furthermore, someone who is Ni-dominant is very cut off from sensing reality (inferior sensation) *and *introverted, giving them probably the most introverted type of all the types (because ENTPs are at least extroverted and have some major connection with the outer world, while the other introverts don't have inferior sensing). Being a mystic or a shaman or a hermit or being very eccentric then isn't too hard to understand.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

gambit said:


> Ni is a function that perceives relationships, connections, and patterns between various things. These things can not be proven or disproven because they can not be wrong or right; they are simply perceived and changing as they become less relevant. By subjective though, I'm not just referring to looking inward and thinking about stuff internally because introversion colors reality, albeit subjectively. Rather then, I'm using subjective to deal with "why" things happen and objective that deals with "how" things happen. Hopefully this is a little more helpful than using the vague words of 'subjective' and 'objective' and makes clear what I mean.
> 
> Metaphors and archetypes then are all various ways that Ni colors the world that they see (by explaining why things happens) and helps guide their sensation function (Se). The difference then between say Ni and Ti is that what Ni sees isn't set in stone and is a transient understanding of why things are occurring in a situation, changing the understanding as circumstances change, while Ti sees or attempts to set things in stone as some kind of rule, standard, or absolute truth that also explains why things are occurring. Ti is in effect, a judgment about reality, whereas Ni truly is a perception of reality.
> 
> Ni then is quite mystical because the way it perceives isn't something you can pinpoint as it's always changing and seeing reality in different ways, indulging in the creativity that the unconscious brings forth, perceiving why things are happening as they are, while not judging them. Furthermore, someone who is Ni-dominant is very cut off from sensing reality (inferior sensation) *and *introverted, giving them probably the most introverted type of all the types (because ENTPs are at least extroverted and have some major connection with the outer world, while the other introverts don't have inferior sensing). Being a mystic or a shaman or a hermit or being very eccentric then isn't too hard to understand.


I can see your reasoning if Ni operated in a vacuum, but no one who uses Ni can completely ignore the other functions. INxJs are going to be mixing in Te and Fe whether they want to or not - both of which do lots of "judging" (to use your terminology). 

Perceptions from others of stuff like mystic/shaman/hermit are usually caused by a lack of understanding. I mean, what's your first reaction when something happens that you don't have a direct explanation for? Superstition is rampant because lots of stuff happens that yields no immediately definitive answer. Or someone has an answer that has no definitive source.

But to me, people perceiving others as something like a mystic and that person being a mystic are two very different things. If you think of Ni like a more broad/general sibling of Si, you can see how both are more like a store of information than anything. The main difference being that Ni synthesizes naturally where Si categorizes naturally.

I think of it kinda like the ball in Katamari Damacy - it starts out small but the more stuff you run over, the bigger the conglomeration of knowledge gets. The glob of stuff isn't exactly organized either, so pulling from it won't naturally say "here's where you pulled the particular glob from." Thus the impression of mysticism.


----------



## gambit (Jun 24, 2010)

LostFavor said:


> I can see your reasoning if Ni operated in a vacuum, but no one who uses Ni can completely ignore the other functions. INxJs are going to be mixing in Te and Fe whether they want to or not - both of which do lots of "judging" (to use your terminology).


Jung explained them in a vacuum and he did so from a very conceptual vantage. He was well-read in philosophy.



> Perceptions from others of stuff like mystic/shaman/hermit are usually caused by a lack of understanding. I mean, what's your first reaction when something happens that you don't have a direct explanation for? Superstition is rampant because lots of stuff happens that yields no immediately definitive answer. Or someone has an answer that has no definitive source.


No. Understanding can be irrational. Mystic/Shaman/Hermit can understand things, albeit irrationally via a well-developed and tuned intuitive faculty. Lack of understanding can apply to any function. In fact, if you want to be honest, each function has an implied epistemology that it is based on and can be wrong in some manner. Classic example is the periodic table of elements; each instance of element isn't necessarily the same in quantum mechanics. It might be rational to say it is though because it's useful to do so, but that doesn't make it "true" in the sense of "What is truth?"



> But to me, people perceiving others as something like a mystic and that person being a mystic are two very different things. If you think of Ni like a more broad/general sibling of Si, you can see how both are more like a store of information than anything. The main difference being that Ni synthesizes naturally where Si categorizes naturally.


People can perceive whatever they want. If a person utilizes a heavy and insightful intuitive faculty, they are forming an irrational understanding of the world. Ni, being also introverted and subjective is the most mystical of the functions. I'm not sure why you are complaining about this.



> I think of it kinda like the ball in Katamari Damacy - it starts out small but the more stuff you run over, the bigger the conglomeration of knowledge gets. The glob of stuff isn't exactly organized either, so pulling from it won't naturally say "here's where you pulled the particular glob from." Thus the impression of mysticism.


Okay. But if you are building a modular knowledge base, that's a very rational way to view things. In fact, you would be organizing by the fact that everything you come to know is based off something you knew before. Intuition is perception and all it requires is to see a thing in a new way. So your conglomeration could be seen as a whole complex thing and seen to have a nature or the parts could be perceived in different ways or some of the parts could be seen as one part and perceived in that way.

I've said this before, but the sum of all parts is a subjective idea. Ti, Ni, Si, and Fi all deal with the subjective sum of all parts in some way. Te, Ne, Se, and Fe deal with the parts of the sum, the objective world. For example, Ni could perceive someone's nature, while Ti judges someone's political orientation and uses that to make decisions. These aren't things that exist in a scientific manner because they *personalize* the world - they see the sum of all parts. This is subjective and it is introversion. Jung's subjective/objective dichotomy relates to a dualism of mind. I'm not sure why people have so much problem accepting/understanding this. Ni isn't rationally based as you say it is. It's irrational as Jung came up with it.

Of course, Fi underlies Te, Ni underlies Se, etc. so there's no clear objective and subjective and that's the point. You can conceptualize them in a vacuum, but talk about them as they relate.

Anyway, you have anything good to say about my posts or is this just going to be a one-way shitfest in my direction?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

gambit said:


> Anyway, you have anything good to say about my posts or is this just going to be a one-way shitfest in my direction?


You challenged what I wrote. I challenged back. I can do this two ways: Discuss the subject with you like I was, being non-confrontational and showing how and why I disagree. Or I can get petty and personal. If you'd like me to fulfill your statement, I can go for the latter. If it's approval you're looking for, an internet forum is not your best option.



gambit said:


> Jung explained them in a vacuum and he did so from a very conceptual vantage. He was well-read in philosophy.


Theory is often explained in a vacuum. To explain a theory while considering everything that connects to it would probably be a mild headache at best.



gambit said:


> No. Understanding can be irrational. Mystic/Shaman/Hermit can understand things, albeit irrationally via a well-developed and tuned intuitive faculty. Lack of understanding can apply to any function. In fact, if you want to be honest, each function has an implied epistemology that it is based on and can be wrong in some manner. Classic example is the periodic table of elements; each instance of element isn't necessarily the same in quantum mechanics. It might be rational to say it is though because it's useful to do so, but that doesn't make it "true" in the sense of "What is truth?"


This just sounds like a fundamental disagreement in language. 



gambit said:


> People can perceive whatever they want. If a person utilizes a heavy and insightful intuitive faculty, they are forming an irrational understanding of the world. Ni, being also introverted and subjective is the most mystical of the functions. I'm not sure why you are complaining about this.


Show me where I complained? I'm not sure what rational and irrational has to do with any of this. The oversimplification of what I'm saying is that Ni appears mystical because it doesn't automatically say where its information is from and yet it can provide demonstrably correct, and new (didn't just read in a book or something), insights.



gambit said:


> Okay. But if you are building a modular knowledge base, that's a very rational way to view things. In fact, you would be organizing by the fact that everything you come to know is based off something you knew before. Intuition is perception and all it requires is to see a thing in a new way. So your conglomeration could be seen as a whole complex thing and seen to have a nature or the parts could be perceived in different ways or some of the parts could be seen as one part and perceived in that way.


Yes and no. You lose me with the assumption that intuition is perception, but the analogy is meant as a way to demonstrate how the knowledge is gathered and organized. The parts need not necessarily rely on something that precedes them. 

I mean, if you follow the idea that parts are based on perception, then X could be building off of Y or it could be building off of two lines that curve and criss-cross to create a shape. If you see my meaning.



gambit said:


> I've said this before, but the sum of all parts is a subjective idea. Ti, Ni, Si, and Fi all deal with the subjective sum of all parts in some way. Te, Ne, Se, and Fe deal with the parts of the sum, the objective world. For example, Ni could perceive someone's nature, while Ti judges someone's political orientation and uses that to make decisions. These aren't things that exist in a scientific manner because they *personalize* the world - they see the sum of all parts. This is subjective and it is introversion. Jung's subjective/objective dichotomy relates to a dualism of mind. I'm not sure why people have so much problem accepting/understanding this. Ni isn't rationally based as you say it is. It's irrational as Jung came up with it.
> 
> Of course, Fi underlies Te, Ni underlies Se, etc. so there's no clear objective and subjective and that's the point. You can conceptualize them in a vacuum, but talk about them as they relate.


These entire two paragraphs are just you sharing your perspective. Which is fine and welcome, but if you are attempting to argue, your words are not structured in that way.


----------



## Darkcreature1 (Jun 1, 2012)

How about this? This first phrase i am more sure of, the rest is more exploring the outcomes of this. Preconceptions here is that sudden insights equals mystical.

Ni is perceived as mystical because people expect it to be Ti and have a clear argument line, but it is simply an observation on the world from a different perspective and thus no more or less then the imitate perception?

So people ask how you managed to get the answer (they mean reason their way to the answer) but the answer was achieved by changing perspective until one was found that worked, thus no argument line. Then this, apparently, get labeled as an unconscious insight which it sometimes can be; But in my experience the shifting of perspective is a conscious phase, that immediately after gives the new pattern where the answer is clearly seen and in this stage the entire process gets labeled an insight, which i think is actually worth to question. 

If the perceptive change was your conscious doing is the answer that surfaces in the new view on the world really an insight?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Not all hunches are even remotely mystical - that's a really unimaginative stereotype (you can have a hunch about anything, down to the really mundane). Ni would be more concerned with the abstract though (by abstract, I certainly do not mean the person has to be someone of any extraordinary intelligence at all - they can be average, and still be said to have such intuitions in a positive way). Introverted intuition is the ontological intuition - the "what could be behind this" intuition in terms of subjective motives, not objective conditions, if we are to examine it as a purely introverted phenomenon (which in most people who may identify with it, it probably is not always that pure). They do not usually state their intuitions as objective answers, but subjective ones (so, more of the intuition in tune with the human mind/motives than stuff that trends around producing various human actions from outer stimuli or common knowledge).


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

In essence:Mystical part is due to not being able to track the line of reasoning or its input(s). I can follow mine. Often I dont care to anymore, but if I wish to I can.


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

I would say that saying Ni is not mystical is also a give away that one's worldview does not include a mystical aspect being a dimension of Reality. I think there is one and the insights I have had come to me in my subjective experience have appeared to have a mystical unexplainable character with which I'm referring to something that is not explainable by a logical process as some things could in no way be known. Some things could... Like for example reading a book on economics, thinking of a friend's relationship and meeting an old friend at a Karaoke place and somehow elements of my mental activities of the past month suddenly coming together into a realization that my friend's sibling who committed suicide had aspergers. It was actually so I learned. But things like having a certainty my infertile friend would have a son in a few years is in no way rational and that too happened. Not that I spoke about it to anyone. I think there is a mystical aspect to reality. I am not going to elaborate further on that but I think there is and I think there is a mystical aspect to Ni. Mostly mundane, but not entirely. It's a matter of your world view I suppose. For some it's an "unexplainable" aspect. For me i prefer mystical due to my ontological views. Views based on intuitive insights so I feel they are very much linked. That's just me.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Intuition's really no different from sense perceptions in that both essentially "emerge" into a kind of Gestalt representation out of no rational "container" or source (unlike judgment, which is dependent on doctrine). Both might have something of a mystical quality in how they originate against unconscious psychic expectations (although if you repress intuition enough, the stimulus of an impression takes over the possibilities it evokes (like you might get some very heavily extraverted sensation-oriented people who cannot really even remove their mentality from whatever concerns present experiences so that much of what you get from them is kind of always rooted in random events that happened to them and not so much their personal take on anything - really really comes down to individuals here, I've noticed, not a universal characteristic of all Se doms, but probably the very archetypal one you see in unmistakeable Se doms - the ones who are highly extraverted and really play up their experience savvy). I would NOT call intuition "soulful" by any means either (that's feeling, not intuition). Intuition is just a very objectively pure perception that removes unnecessary factors from mental orientation to data to allow the emergence of hunches dealing with the perceptual landscape of the data. My guess is that Jung would consider anyone fairly in touch with their unconscious side to have a developed intuitive capacity (I mean, according to all research, intuition can always be developed and developed fairly easily). From what I read, he definitely closely connects intuition with the unconscious.


----------



## Texas (Mar 24, 2013)

ENTPreneur said:


> In essence:Mystical part is due to not being able to track the line of reasoning or its input(s). I can follow mine. Often I dont care to anymore, but if I wish to I can.


I often can't trace mine back, which seems strange. A few times I've realized I'm registering vibrations or very low frequencies that are usually simple background noise or just not heard at all. 

It's those types of patterns that are so often subconscious that make it as much a mystery to me as to others, how I know things out of thin air.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Darkcreature1 said:


> How about this? This first phrase i am more sure of, the rest is more exploring the outcomes of this. Preconceptions here is that sudden insights equals mystical.
> 
> Ni is perceived as mystical because people expect it to be Ti and have a clear argument line, but it is simply an observation on the world from a different perspective and thus no more or less then the imitate perception?
> 
> ...


I can see that. I don't know that it would necessarily be an insight. I use the term loosely.


----------



## gunkuarve (Sep 2, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> Do you trust your Ni? It's hard not to if you lead with it. But you don't have to rely on a seemingly mystical source; if you can trace the synthesized conclusion back to its source, you can, to some degree, test your own credibility.


I definitely trust my Ni whatever the circumstances are. Ni provides me with accurate predictions of what's going to happen.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Ni users practice the dark arts. :O


----------



## Tharwen (Mar 20, 2013)

the way i would explain Ni: its like a mini model of the whole existence, everything ive gathered and like in sudoku, i can figure out things based on knowledge i have so it also includes all this figured out data. and because its so compelling, it includes absolutely everything ive experienced thorought my life so there isnt space to waste, which is why i forget how i came to the connclusions of world being the way it is as that information is anyways irrelevant, the information i poses is self explanatory.

this model is also largely tied to subconscious, aka why when i search my subconscious, its largely blindfolded but i somehow navigate in the darkness because of a lifetime of experience doing so, and then i get the correct flashes. its like google search, except the google is in my head! =D


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Tharwen said:


> the way i would explain Ni: its like a mini model of the whole existence, everything ive gathered and like in sudoku, i can figure out things based on knowledge i have so it also includes all this figured out data. and because its so compelling, it includes absolutely everything ive experienced thorought my life so there isnt space to waste, which is why i forget how i came to the connclusions of world being the way it is as that information is anyways irrelevant, the information i poses is self explanatory.
> 
> this model is also largely tied to subconscious, aka why when i search my subconscious, its largely blindfolded but i somehow navigate in the darkness because of a lifetime of experience doing so, and then i get the correct flashes. its like google search, except the google is in my head! =D


This is much the way I see it. Heres my stab. It. We have the external world, and our internal model. Se users scan the outer world in a concrete and objective fashion. I see an apple. It is red and good for eating. Si users scan subjectively, ego-centric. I see the apple which is tasty to me.

N users scan the world figuratively, that is they use their internal representations. An Ne user sees an apple and thinks of gravity and computers and worms, but there is no subjective bias. An Ne network looks like a blackwidow web. It is a hodgepodge of abstract memories and ad hoc connections built in a flash of perception.

Venombyte.com - Venomous Spiders - Northern Black Widow

An Ni users also scans internally, but his web is carefully constructed from past experience. A thread is put in, only after the connection is vetted, an orderly web. So an Ni user can very efficiently scan his web, computer like, for past similar patterns.

Se perceptions fail when they miss the big picture. they're so fixated on the apple, they miss the witch handing them out.
Ne perceptions fail when they miss the obvious connection for something outlandsh: like turning apples into spaceships instead of pies.
Si perceptions fail when their perception aligns too well with their preference. I like apples, therefore you like apples. 
Ni perceptions fail when there are no patterns to fall back on (intj stubborn mode) or when they pick something similar but wrong.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

Ni seems mystical because people keep having psychic or borderline psychic perceptions and blaming them on Ni.

In my experience, Si types have psychic insights WAYYYYYYY more often than a Ni dominant does. They're right more often, too. But people aren't reading the descriptions and figuring out what functions are, people are just going "psychic, intuition. Pretty much the same right?"

Psychic here being used loosely to describe any sort of "just knowing" or anything like that.

@_Vanishing Point_: whether or not mystical phenomena exists is completely separate from the MBTI. The MBTI is strictly a model for how a person thinks (and, by extension, how a person will tend to act.) By further extension perhaps certain types, by nature of how they think into how they act might bleed into a type's tenancy to mystical experience, but at that point you're so far removed from the original purpose that a lot of contamination (of the concept) has probably occurred.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

bobdaduck said:


> Ni seems mystical because people keep having psychic or borderline psychic perceptions and blaming them on Ni.
> 
> In my experience, Si types have psychic insights WAYYYYYYY more often than a Ni dominant does. They're right more often, too. But people aren't reading the descriptions and figuring out what functions are, people are just going "psychic, intuition. Pretty much the same right?"
> 
> Psychic here being used loosely to describe any sort of "just knowing" or anything like that.


Personally, I believe that all introverted functions have an intuitive quality to them. I think people tend to relate the function label, Intuition, to mean the same as the word's dictionary definition.

I otherwise see Ni and Si as an abstract and/or impressionistic internal worldview.


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

bobdaduck said:


> @_Vanishing Point_: whether or not mystical phenomena exists is completely separate from the MBTI. The MBTI is strictly a model for how a person thinks (and, by extension, how a person will tend to act.) By further extension perhaps certain types, by nature of how they think into how they act might bleed into a type's tenancy to mystical experience, but at that point you're so far removed from the original purpose that a lot of contamination (of the concept) has probably occurred.


Well I think you're right in that MBTI does describe how people think and Ni is a label for a cognitive process as I understand it. However it must have some tie with "the mystical" as descriptions of Ni-dominance is always tied to mystical phenomena, as far as I've read descriptions of it I can't really remember a single one which does not connect Ni to having a mystical quality to it, wether Jung, Nardi or Thompson ...or Keirsey or Socionics even. Sure it's possible to give sensible interpretations of introverted intuitions workings that
are tied to more practical results but in none of the descriptions is it possible to completely do away any mystical aspects tied to introverted intuition. So would it not be false to claim that introverted intuition is not tied to an aspect of the human experience best labelled and filed under the "mystical"? 
What the meaning and nature of that phenomena is a different matter altogether. That's why when I read posts on these threads I find people make more of a statement to something ontological rather than wether the cognitive process of introverted intuitives naturally goes hand in hand with this set of human experience that is traditionally called mystical. To me mystical seems a fine description for something that is characteristic to introverted intuition as a dominant function, and from what I can tell in my Ni aux friends. I just don't see why it needs to be amputated off of the Ni discriptions. Firstly I find most have experienced things that subjectively assessed are "mystical" as per what the term refers to and secondly because it would leave an important particular quality out of the Ni description. 
Personally the fact our western society is so rational materialistic has caused me a lot of grief in trying to accept myself. Beginning from being a small girl of six trying to comb through the encyclopedia trying to find a mental illness that would fit the description of what is making me be so different from others. Mystical experiences are hardwired into the brain none the less and perhaps there is a link to the introverted intuitives cognition. Who knows. To me it's accurate to link introverted intuition to the human experience of the mystical.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Personally, I believe that all introverted functions have an intuitive quality to them. I think people tend to relate the function label, Intuition, to mean the same as the word's dictionary definition.
> 
> I otherwise see Ni and Si as an abstract and/or impressionistic internal worldview.


To add, all the introvert functions, because they're turned inwardly, can be neglectful of the external, sometimes literally so. So when someone says "I don't pay attention to my surroundings, it's not that they're an intuitive necessarily but that they rely too much on their introverted functions. 

You've come up with a good way of describing Ni and Si; they have the same functionality but manifest in completely different ways.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Ellis Bell said:


> To add, all the introvert functions, because they're turned inwardly, can be neglectful of the external, sometimes literally so. So when someone says "I don't pay attention to my surroundings, it's not that they're an intuitive necessarily but that they rely too much on their introverted functions.


Haha no doubt! Tis why I thought I was an N-dom for sooo long.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Very abstract intuitions would deal in the realm of what's pretty much a rational hallucination in a way - the person knows what the right thing to say is on the basis of notions, such as "this doesn't HAVE to be this way" or what have you - there's that sense of "knowing" someone else that comes with it, often on an archetypal basis (these types most certainly immeditately gravitate toward other intuitives on the basis of their own intuition (I know I have - a lot of people with a really good sense of intuition have probably just had to look once at someone to know whether or not they will be able to relate, get along, etc.) - it's kind of a weird phenomenon that to the dominant (or someone in whom it sufficiently influences) probably feels completely natural - their hunches do not mislead them, even though they might not always yield accurate information of the "content/specifics" of someone (that's more thinking/sensation or at best, feeling).


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

@_Vanishing Point_: I hold no opinion whether or not mystic or psychic things exist in life, but Ni is not the cause of them. The reason its necessary to amputate it from the descriptions is because NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE HECK NI IS. See here: Introverted Intuition (Ni): Clarification - INTJ Forum

When I'm looking for an answer to something, and someone tells me they have an answer, I get all excited and stuff, because I think I'm going to learn something and such, right? But then their answer turns out to be "Its magic!" (or, roughly, "its impossible to know!") that feels like quite the cop out. Especially because the way the cognitive function system is laid out, it seems very "tacked on" to the descriptions. None of the other functions have anything to do with psychic phenomena. I personally have a hard time even seeing how intuition and psychicness ended up connected at all, because jung's definition of intuition is nothing at all like the classical "just knowing" definition of intuition. 

And again, I find Si dominants have a ridiculously higher amount of mystic experiences than Ni dominants. 

The "Ni is magic" descriptions are frustrating and confusing and because of them nobody seems to know exactly how Ni works. When it shouldn't be that complicated. It shouldn't be nearly that complicated. There's just a ton of pollution that people have to try to weed out what's glorified in the descriptions from the simple "how this function works" part. 

Also something to point out. If magic is your dominant function... Why are INJs not living in a constant state of psychic and mystic phenomena? Why is it just a small portion? As the ego function, magic should be "who you are", yet INTJs mention it as an offhand side, if at all, and for INFJs it seems to be a completely seperate box. Like "I have a lot of mystic experiences and I hear its because I'm INFJ (INFP have more mystic experiences than INFJs too, further invalidating the claim that Ni is responsible for mystic experiences)" but almost no INFJ sees being a mystic psychic person as "who they are".

As a Ni dominant myself, I almost never have mystical experiences. Especially when compared to my Si dominant or Fi dominant friends. I've spent a LOT of time researching only one cognitive function: Ni. And yes most descriptions say "its magic", but they all disagree on how, exactly, its magic. This would point to that being incorrect, and not a part of the function at all.

So... That's why I'm adamant about this. Sorry for all that xD


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

bobdaduck said:


> @_Vanishing Point_: I hold no opinion whether or not mystic or psychic things exist in life, but Ni is not the cause of them. The reason its necessary to amputate it from the descriptions is because NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE HECK NI IS. See here: Introverted Intuition (Ni): Clarification - INTJ Forum
> 
> When I'm looking for an answer to something, and someone tells me they have an answer, I get all excited and stuff, because I think I'm going to learn something and such, right? But then their answer turns out to be "Its magic!" (or, roughly, "its impossible to know!") that feels like quite the cop out. Especially because the way the cognitive function system is laid out, it seems very "tacked on" to the descriptions. None of the other functions have anything to do with psychic phenomena. I personally have a hard time even seeing how intuition and psychicness ended up connected at all, because jung's definition of intuition is nothing at all like the classical "just knowing" definition of intuition.
> 
> ...


Firstly I did not say that Ni is "magic". Don't be silly. 
Have you considered that maybe Ni doms don't have as many mystical experiences (<--- though I would love to get your definition of what that is) because when you experience the world a certain way all the time since birth you may not find things normal to you abnormal. I can probably give an example: let's say "lucid dreams". There are books and workshops about the subject. I thought that most be some kind of a very peculiar thing. Then you read about it and are left scratching your head because you find it peculiar that someone wouldn't do that. To you it may just be you know... Just dreams you have sometimes. Whereas if it's not, and then it must feel super strange and note worthy. 
If there is something consistently annoyingly hard to explain about Ni then what does that imply to you? I'm just wondering.


----------



## bobdaduck (Apr 24, 2010)

Vanishing Point said:


> Firstly I did not say that Ni is "magic". Don't be silly.
> Have you considered that maybe Ni doms don't have as many mystical experiences (<--- though I would love to get your definition of what that is) because when you experience the world a certain way all the time since birth you may not find things normal to you abnormal. I can probably give an example: let's say "lucid dreams". There are books and workshops about the subject. I thought that most be some kind of a very peculiar thing. Then you read about it and are left scratching your head because you find it peculiar that someone wouldn't do that. To you it may just be you know... Just dreams you have sometimes. Whereas if it's not, and then it must feel super strange and note worthy.
> If there is something consistently annoyingly hard to explain about Ni then what does that imply to you? I'm just wondering.


 No you didn't say that, but I've read several descriptions that outright say "Ni is magic", as well as the majority of descriptions tacking on "And you'll never understand it so give up." Mystical experiences I'm categorizing along with psychic phenomena here; ghosts, premonitions, clairvoyance, someone going through severe emotional trauma who is close to you and you feeling that they did, etc. 

I don't lucid dream normally. I've learned in the past but was never very good at it... But even there, plenty of people think that lucid dreaming and astral projection are the same thing. Anyway, I understand where you're coming from, I suppose. And yeah, to a lot of the population Ni probably does seem really weird and alien (its the rarest cognitive function, right?) Which is probably where a lot of the "Ni is magic" descriptions come from. But to a Ni dominant, its not magic, so _it should not be classified as such._ The descriptions can go ahead and say "Ni is something really special." But if every description says that Ni is special in a different way, then there is no consensus on what the function is and any understanding becomes useless. 

It would imply that someone doesn't understand. We all know Einstein's quote that "if you can't explain it to a five year old, you don't understand it well enough."


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

bobdaduck said:


> @_Vanishing Point_: I hold no opinion whether or not mystic or psychic things exist in life, but Ni is not the cause of them. The reason its nece
> Also something to point out. If magic is your dominant function... Why are INJs not living in a constant state of psychic and mystic phenomena? Why is it just a small portion? As the ego function, magic should be "who you are", yet INTJs mention it as an offhand side, if at all, and for INFJs it seems to be a completely seperate box. Like "I have a lot of mystic experiences and I hear its because I'm INFJ (INFP have more mystic experiences than INFJs too, further invalidating the claim that Ni is responsible for mystic experiences)" but almost no INFJ sees being a mystic psychic person as "who they are".
> 
> 
> So... That's why I'm adamant about this. Sorry for all that xD



Proportionally speaking INTJ have higher IQ than the population at large. I would say a fairly good working copy of Te allows them to see Ni for what it really is, a web of internal self-made associations that they can scan for similarities. It's like doing a picture search on google.

IN
View attachment 66939


OUT












Perhaps INFJs, being F, are less aware of how their Ni works and tend to attribute it to some sort of mysticism…..like Ni not actually being party of the brain itself, i.e. mystical, or relying on highly doubtful physics, i.e., "psychic powers".


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Vanishing Point said:


> Firstly I did not say that Ni is "magic". Don't be silly.
> Have you considered that maybe Ni doms don't have as many mystical experiences (<--- though I would love to get your definition of what that is) because when you experience the world a certain way all the time since birth you may not find things normal to you abnormal. I can probably give an example: let's say "lucid dreams". There are books and workshops about the subject. I thought that most be some kind of a very peculiar thing. Then you read about it and are left scratching your head because you find it peculiar that someone wouldn't do that. To you it may just be you know... Just dreams you have sometimes. Whereas if it's not, and then it must feel super strange and note worthy.
> *If there is something consistently annoyingly hard to explain about Ni then what does that imply to you? *I'm just wondering.


What's bolded is what makes me so frustrated when talking to people. Ni is the hardest function to explain, if you don't believe it look at any description of Ni or the amount of threads trying to describe it. If something is hard to explain to the *majority* then it comes off as mystical because its hard to define. Without a definition it's hard to tie down what it actually is. My problem is that this concept seems easy to understand, so I get frustrated when people say Si is just as mystical or any function for that matter. Si may seem mystical to an INJ but majority consensus dictates that those are the rarest and Si users are the least rarest of all the types. So what may seem mystical to an INJ isn't mystical to the majority, and what seems normal to the Dom Ni is actually seen as mystical to the majority. We know that Sensation deals with sensory perception, which is then categorized as stored sensory perception (Si) or immediate intake of intense sensory perception (Se). For the most part, Intuition is understood by its process but not by what it actually is because its hard to define due to the lack of understanding of Ni (Ne seems pretty well understand by most). 

Also all introverted functions are special in their own way but I would hardly say they all are intuitive. Ti focuses on storing information to help build its own system where its organization is based off of its principles. Fi is storing information to help build its own individual code based off its values. I already explained Si. None of those three are intuitive in any fashion, all of its storage can be traced when it presents itself externally. That's the difference with Ni, it can't be traced back even when presented externally unless with the help of Fe/Te, but not by itself. That's what makes it interesting, mystical, hard to explain (which I attempted in a thread I made). Now that's me understanding why it's seen as mystical, but I don't think it's mystical. It can be explained and understood it'll just take more time to nail down what exactly intuition is so its easier to connect Ni and Ne through the principles of intuition as whole. With that being said I also must admit I don't think anything is mystical at all and everything can be explained in due time, maybe not our life time, but in due time nevertheless.


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> What's bolded is what makes me so frustrated when talking to people. Ni is the hardest function to explain, if you don't believe it look at any description of Ni or the amount of threads trying to describe it. If something is hard to explain to the *majority* then it comes off as mystical because its hard to define. Without a definition it's hard to tie down what it actually is. My problem is that this concept seems easy to understand, so I get frustrated when people say Si is just as mystical or any function for that matter. Si may seem mystical to an INJ but majority consensus dictates that those are the rarest and Si users are the least rarest of all the types. So what may seem mystical to an INJ isn't mystical to the majority, and what seems normal to the Dom Ni is actually seen as mystical to the majority. We know that Sensation deals with sensory perception, which is then categorized as stored sensory perception (Si) or immediate intake of intense sensory perception (Se). For the most part, Intuition is understood by its process but not by what it actually is because its hard to define due to the lack of understanding of Ni (Ne seems pretty well understand by most).
> 
> Also all introverted functions are special in their own way but I would hardly say they all are intuitive. Ti focuses on storing information to help build its own system where its organization is based off of its principles. Fi is storing information to help build its own individual code based off its values. I already explained Si. None of those three are intuitive in any fashion, all of its storage can be traced when it presents itself externally. That's the difference with Ni, it can't be traced back even when presented externally unless with the help of Fe/Te, but not by itself. That's what makes it interesting, mystical, hard to explain (which I attempted in a thread I made). Now that's me understanding why it's seen as mystical, but I don't think it's mystical. It can be explained and understood it'll just take more time to nail down what exactly intuition is so its easier to connect Ni and Ne through the principles of intuition as whole. With that being said I also must admit I don't think anything is mystical at all and everything can be explained in due time, maybe not our life time, but in due time nevertheless.


Good luck on your ambitious and worthy project. Please keep us posted on your findings. Lol. Maybe someday most things will be possible to be represented accurately by a logical model- 'till such time...



azdahak said:


> Proportionally speaking INTJ have higher IQ than the population at large. I would say a fairly good working copy of Te allows them to see Ni for what it really is, a web of internal self-made associations that they can scan for similarities. It's like doing a picture search on google.
> 
> IN
> View attachment 66939
> ...


Thank you, firstly, for implying I as an IN*F*J am just not intelligent enough to understand my lead function unlike a more intelligent IN*T*J would. :dry: As I actually happen to be very much above average intelligence it's also very presumptuous and false. Shame on you. Tut tut.

P.S. even the more intelligent Ni-doms seem to be having to nod to the mystical to provide comprehensive descriptions of it's workings... 
* *





*Example Lifecycle*
Introverted Intuiting is more than a font of revelations, realizations, and inspiring visions. It is a cognitive process that we can actively engage to produce a sophisticated result. What happens varies depending on our psychological response when called to engage it.
*Table 4: lifecycle of introverted Intuiting*


*Stage**Engage as**Typical Experience*1strange experienceexperience a premonition or strange "knowing"
feel pulled to the symbolic, archetypal or mysterious
suddenly realize an "ah ha!" answer out of no where2magical guidefollow a vision or dream of how things will be in the future
rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict or transform
gain a profound realization from a mystical state or catharsis3cognitive toolfreely produce complex insights into problems and issues not yet encountered
enhance oneself for a situation by bringing in other aspects of oneself
foresee results of applying intuitive insights and pre-adjust4growth
catalystcreate by partnering with the unconscious
conceive of symbolic or novel ways to understand things that are universal
create transcendent experiences or solutions that transcend a problem

The “stages” are for organizational purposes and reflect points along a continuum. Typically, if introverted Intuiting is dominant, then stages 1 and 2 show in childhood, stage 3 shows in adolescence and one’s twenties, and stage 4 hopefully shows somewhat later. Where we are is somewhat “fuzzy.” A thirty-something INFJ or INTJ may function at stage 3 on a daily basis, visit stage 4 during peak moments of creativity and leadership, and respond from stage 2 when under stress or playing around. Other personality types mature into introverted Intuiting more slowly and get less successful results. For personality types that use introverted Intuiting as a second, third or sixth function, an adult ENFJ, ENTJ, INFP, INTP, ISFP or ISTP would likely engage introverted Intuiting at stage 1 or 2, with peak moments at 3 if well developed.
Our human inheritance provides us with instinctual stage 1 experiences. *For introverted Intuiting, archetypes and a capacity for mystical experiences are hardwired into the brain.* For stage 2, culture provides both socially-normative and alternative ways for us to engage each function. Most “magic guides” such as tarot readers or secret societies are outside mainstream society but the culture provides these for us. In contrast, stage 3 is our personalized cognitive toolbox. It is diverse and sophisticated. We use it toward personal ends, whether to help solve a scientific mystery, creatively build a business, or further develop our human potential. Broadly, usage allows us to solve problems that do not yet exist and provides insights into issues we have not yet faced. (This is “active” foreseeing.) Stage 4 is a synthesis of the others. The result of engaging it shifts people and paradigms, and produces heroic results.

http://www.darionardi.com/functions.html


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Man. This misconceptions of both Te and Fe are astounding.


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)




----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Damn, I naturally imagined he would look more like a GrandadILF than that ><

Ni isn't mystical. It's just with inferior Se, INJs pick up so many real world images and "stuff" in such a messy unorganised way so in order to make sense of it all, Ni looks for patterns, themes, anything that can help find meaning from all that random noise. In doing so, we are often able to spot things that other types miss.

There's nothing magical about it. It's just practise and an eye for finding connections in random details.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Vanishing Point said:


> Good luck on your ambitious and worthy project. Please keep us posted on your findings. Lol. Maybe someday most things will be possible to be represented accurately by a logical model- 'till such time...
> 
> 
> Thank you, firstly, for implying I as an IN*F*J am just not intelligent enough to understand my lead function unlike a more intelligent IN*T*J would. :dry: As I actually happen to be very much above average intelligence it's also very presumptuous and false. Shame on you. Tut tut.
> ...


Nah. You took my statement and made your own implication. What I'm saying is that an intelligent Te user logically analyses his own Ni for what it is. They think this "genius" perspective allows them to see all the little patterns and hence and you get the inflated nerd-ego of the INTJ. 

I would argue your strong Fe perspective muddles the analysis, and instead of building a logical structure around your intuition, you get confirmation on your intuition by feeling these emotional "psychic" impressions of the crowd. 

Some of the words used in the above description: premonition, mystical, transcendent.

Do you really think Ni lets you see into the future and experience other realities?

Précis:

INTJs attribute Ni insights to their genius. 
INFJs attribute Ni insights to the supernatural.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

azdahak said:


> INTJs attribute Ni insights to their genius.
> INFJs attribute Ni insights to the supernatural.


This will end well.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Teybo said:


> This will end well.


Is that a premonition? :laughing:


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

azdahak said:


> Nah. You took my statement and made your own implication. What I'm saying is that an intelligent Te user logically analyses his own Ni for what it is. They think this "genius" perspective allows them to see all the little patterns and hence and you get the inflated nerd-ego of the INTJ.
> 
> I would argue your strong Fe perspective muddles the analysis, and instead of building a logical structure around your intuition, you get confirmation on your intuition by feeling these emotional "psychic" impressions of the crowd.
> 
> ...


A Te user may be better equipped to analyze his function in regards to which parts of it are logical. I would like to point out that both Nardi and Thompson still use words like mystical in their analyses of Ni, both being INTJs, so it's not necessarily so that there are no any at least experientially mystical aspects to Ni. Wether they are just a subjective illusion that can be explained rationally or something else is another thing. What I'm saying is you cannot divorce Ni from mystical because experientially it has that quality.
I personally see little need to spend too much time building a logical structure around my intuition because for most parts it's useless for my purposes. I do creative work and what matters more fo me personally is transmitting human experience and insight into the human condition via an artistic medium.  Lack of focusing on the logical aspect does not make my insight into my own lead function moot. I'm trying to impart and express what it is actually like as an experience to have dominant introverted intuition. I know people tend to be reluctant to do so and for a good reason.
As for your questions: I think I have moments of spontaneous insight into how things will unfold that are often remarkably accurate. Not just in my opinion but it's been noted in my immediate circle and people come to me for insight as pertaining to that knack if you will. 
As for experiencing other realities it depends on what's meant by that exactly.


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> Do you trust your Ni?


-Do you trust your Ni?
-No.
-Why?
-Because I have a negative impression about it.
-That means you think it's unreliable, because you have trust on your intuition about your intuition.
-Yes.
-Then?
-It's complicated.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Vanishing Point said:


> A Te user may be better equipped to analyze his function in regards to which parts of it are logical. I would like to point out that both Nardi and Thompson still use words like mystical in their analyses of Ni, both being INTJs, so it's not necessarily so that there are no any at least experientially mystical aspects to Ni. Wether they are just a subjective illusion that can be explained rationally or something else is another thing. What I'm saying is you cannot divorce Ni from mystical because experientially it has that quality.
> I personally see little need to spend too much time building a logical structure around my intuition because for most parts it's useless for my purposes. I do creative work and what matters more fo me personally is transmitting human experience and insight into the human condition via an artistic medium.  Lack of focusing on the logical aspect does not make my insight into my own lead function moot. I'm trying to impart and express what it is actually like as an experience to have dominant introverted intuition. I know people tend to be reluctant to do so and for a good reason.
> As for your questions: I think I have moments of spontaneous insight into how things will unfold that are often remarkably accurate. Not just in my opinion but it's been noted in my immediate circle and people come to me for insight as pertaining to that knack if you will.
> As for experiencing other realities it depends on what's meant by that exactly.



I'm not saying you lack insight, I'm saying you (by your own admission) lack logical analysis of your perception. 

When an INTJ gets insights, they think out loud and explain it to you. They jump to an Ni conclusion and then talk it out, so they come off as being brilliant. And since they've also explained it to themselves in the process, they think of themselves as brilliant for figuring it out. INTJs have no problems determining the source of their brilliant insights is they themselves.

An INFJ gets an insight, but they interpret it thought feelings. All the subtle cues of body language, word choice, eye contact, tone, etc. are fodder for Ni+Fe. So a brief contact with "Joe" is enough to give a worried "feeling". (Maybe your 3rd tier Ti self-critic tells you you're wrong and so you don't act or say anything.) Then you find out later Joe killed himself. No one else noticed. They all thought he looked so happy! Except you. Maybe you did tell someone. They ask how could you have possibly known it would happen? You can't quite really explain it. You just had a "hunch". Spooky. 


As an ENTP, when my Ne/Ti/Fe Cerberus decides to line up and cooperate, weird shit happens. My Ne/Fe scans the room and makes a quick situational and emotional appraisal of the room, and Ti vets its all and gives it a thumbs up. When it happens it's kinda like this:

- I walk into a room and see person X doing something. They turn to ask me something. Before they can even get a word out, I'll say "It's in the cupboard". They'll get this suspicious look on their face and ask me "What's the in cupboard?" Then I'll say "The screwdriver you're looking for." 

- "Why don't you answer the phone?" "Because it's X calling for Y."

- A friend comes up to me at my desk and I'll say "I'd rather have pizza than Chinese."

Anyway, those types of things happen to me once and a while. (Oftentimes they're spectacularly wrong.) But my Ti deep down knows what's going on and where it's all coming from. It will realize how the little tidbits of information I overheard and the telling expressions and the time of day, etc. etc. etc. all add up.

I reject the notion that Ni is in any way a metaphysical cognitive function. But I can understand how say a young person dominated by Ni with a weak secondary can get so bamboozled by N's amazing perspicacity that they think the hunch is coming from somewhere else besides their own brain.


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

azdahak said:


> I'm not saying you lack insight, I'm saying you (by your own admission) lack logical analysis of your perception.
> 
> When an INTJ gets insights, they think out loud and explain it to you. They jump to an Ni conclusion and then talk it out, so they come off as being brilliant. And since they've also explained it to themselves in the process, they think of themselves as brilliant for figuring it out. INTJs have no problems determining the source of their brilliant insights is they themselves.
> 
> ...


Well being perceptive is one thing. It's not hard to predict some things by just mere observation and using your deductive skills. I have two children and the times I've said to them "Don't you even THINK about it! I know what you're up to!" are numerous and daily. Then there are other things that are not so easily explained.
I am going to overlook the way you keep using MBTI to imply I'm some kind of a numb nuts, which is funny since mine, yours and INTJs' strongest by far function is a perceiving function, not a rational function. The aux and tertiary are not that far apart in strenght so to keep referring to my T function being tertiary to discredit my understanding is a bit distasteful to me. I don't think with my feelings. I make my decisions based on the evaluation of what is for the general greater good. I don't think with my Fe. I evaluate with it. 
As for the hypothetical young person with an underdeveloped Fe jumping into wrong conclusions and succumbing into superstitions. Strictly hypothetically there can be an adult, lets say 33 years old, INFJ. Let's call her VP for now. This hypothetical 33 year old VP may have had ample opportunity to develop Fe as a result of their profession. This VP might have actually been more concerned with being seen as logical in their teens, but with the passing years felt more comfortable being controversial and express their actual observations more happily. Maybe this INFJ VP may have become comfortable with the fact not every thing CAN be rationalized. This VP would by the way be one of the more "senior citizens" of this MBTI forum, which has a generally younger populus. Lol. So it's not my age or under development.
I think you're just not understanding that you're trying to do something impossible if you're trying to understand introverted intuition with a model that encompasses it entirely and omit all whiffs of the mystical, by at least on the experiental level. It's like trying to measure love. You can hook someone up to monitors, make evolutionary theories on what it is but the full picture of what it is has to be experienced firsthand. Otherwise the description remains unsatisfactory. It's not because of any personal flaw of the researchers, it's just because it cannot be done. Period.
Though I'm not very happy to do it because it does make me look insane I'll give you a real life example of an intuition I had just to really illustrate what we're actually talking about. This is a highly disturbing experience I had and to relay it I have to undermine my own credibility against my better judgement so you best be gracious about this.


> An INFJ gets an insight, but they interpret it thought feelings. All the subtle cues of body language, word choice, eye contact, tone, etc. are fodder for Ni+Fe. So a brief contact with "Joe" is enough to give a worried "feeling". (Maybe your 3rd tier Ti self-critic tells you you're wrong and so you don't act or say anything.) Then you find out later Joe killed himself. No one else noticed. They all thought he looked so happy! Except you. Maybe you did tell someone. They ask how could you have possibly known it would happen? You can't quite really explain it. You just had a "hunch". Spooky.


I was at work, just about to leave when a friend of mine walked in with, let's say Joe. They introduced us. Outwardly we were politely exchanging a few words. Just small talk. I felt uneasy. There was a peculiar "emptiness" about Joe. Like if you'd be eating strawberries and suddenly bite into one without flavor. I was wondering to myself "What is this?" and I suddenly had a clear realization that Joe was going to die. This was all in my head so I thought "That's ridiculous. What a morpnic thought" and left. I kept getting images of a bonfire. Anyway. I just decided it was one of those weird moments. Two weeks later Joe dies in a accidental fire. I don't know. It's just plain disturbing. THAT is what I refer to when I speak of that aspect of Ni which to me is best labelled under "mysterious" Mostly it's intuitive leaps which are perfectly logical. Sometimes it's not.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

You keep insisting I'm implying you're stupid. I've just been disagreeing with your interpretation of MBTI. For instance, you claim that tertiary Ti is close in strength to secondary Fe. Then why shouldn't it be the same for me with my Ti>Fe? Are INTJs and INFJs that close in their outlooks? Why bother talking about NTs and NFs at all if they're that close. Maybe your Fe doesn't work well over the Internet. I'll try to use more emoticons. 

I don't really see how your comments are responding to my points rather than simply being dismissive. For instance, you say "it's not hard to predict some things by mere observation...." to dismiss my examples, but yet this is a discussion about a mere perceiving function. Your "hypothetical" is some sort of bizarre response to a perceived ad hominem....you assumed I was talking about you, and you assumed I think you're young, otherwise why go into all that defensive language? Sometimes a hypothetical, is just a hypothetical. 

In any case your last example sounds like a classic example of conformation bias. Otherwise you're implying that your Ni let's you predict the future, and that Ni is somehow a special, mystical cognitive function. If you want to believe that, go head. But you haven't provided a persuasive argument for me to conclude that. I'll just keep to the assumption that Ni users are human.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

The reason Ni is perceived as mystical is in a way simple LOL. It's that Ni-doms suppress sensation, and also suppress the objectivity of intuition. 

In reality, "mystical" is more describing the introversion of Ni than the fact that it is N. It's just simply that N is not tied to the sensory that makes it hard to pin down.

Many, or rather, I'd guess _most_ Ni winds up being pretty much what @superdooper wrote. 

However, introverted functions of any kind, with enough suppression of objectivity, can bring one into what is perceived by many as mystical realm.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

bearotter said:


> The reason Ni is perceived as mystical is in a way simple LOL. It's that Ni-doms suppress sensation, and also *suppress the objectivity of intuition*.
> 
> In reality, "mystical" is more describing the introversion of Ni than the fact that it is N. It's just simply that N is not tied to the sensory that makes it hard to pin down.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't say it's suppression more than just when you focus so much inwards, the outside world gets ignored. You start to trust yourself more than you do objective knowledge simply because it's all you know. I don't really do this consciously, but confirmation bias works in such a way that it just reinforces my trust in my own Ni knowledge more than what's going on outside.

To me, Ni is just knowledge with a lot of confirmation bias because of course, anything I think that is wrong gets forgotten. So I'm always right because I forgot all the times I was wrong. With enough practise I start to be right more than wrong anyway. And being an INFJ, my main area of interest is people of course so after a while, I learn how to dissect people; once you know what's someone's fear are (which people give away much more easily than they realise) you know how they work. You have to remember we analyse everything, from tone of voice, to the tiniest gestures. All this information helps someone create a very good knowledge base of who you are.

What you are talking about are "hunches" and I get these a lot. FML. I just seem to know things because so much random information hangs around in my brain but I haven't processed it in any way. It just stays in my mind as information e.g.:

- Hmm I just read that scientists have discovered this new thing about how people choose careers.

[that'll stay in my mind that way for however long until I can connect it to another piece of knowledge that's floating around]:

- Hmm so and so did this seemingly random thing yesterday concerning their career I wonder why... I've noticed that a lot recently actually... OH WAIT IT'S BECAUSE I READ SOMEWHERE THAT SCIENTISTS HAVE DISCOVERED THIS NEW THING. BOOM. I knew it before the scientists did I swear.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

superdooper said:


> I wouldn't say it's suppression more than just when you focus so much inwards, the outside world gets ignored.




Well FWIW yes, this is my meaning, roughly, it's a tradeoff.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

bearotter said:


> Well FWIW yes, this is my meaning, roughly, it's a tradeoff. [/COLOR]


No worries, I was just explaining it to anyone who might be interested in knowing exactly what it's like from a Ni perspective


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

azdahak said:


> I don't really see how your comments are responding to my points rather than simply being dismissive. For instance, you say "it's not hard to predict some things by mere observation...." to dismiss my examples, but yet this is a discussion about a mere perceiving function. Your "hypothetical" is some sort of bizarre response to a perceived ad hominem....you assumed I was talking about you, and you assumed I think you're young, otherwise why go into all that defensive language? Sometimes a hypothetical, is just a hypothetical.


Im guessing the defensiveness is a side effect of Ni.
We suppress what is (Se) for what might be (Ni). Our Ni makes connections where there are none to explain holes, unlike other people then INJs got issues with taking things for what they are.
If you ask a person how old they are in the middle of a discussion/argument, a non-INJ would see it for it is. For an INJ however, it is a part of the discussion/argument to point against something negative (see bellow) and we don't just react to the question, but we react to the possible question to come after it is answered, for example: "Well, if you are that young the you wouldn't understand."

Or maybe that's just is us damaged INJs 



> In any case your last example sounds like a classic example of conformation bias. Otherwise you're implying that your Ni let's you predict the future, and that Ni is somehow a special, mystical cognitive function. If you want to believe that, go head. But you haven't provided a persuasive argument for me to conclude that. I'll just keep to the assumption that Ni users are human.


I LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE SAY THEY CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE BECAUSE THEY GOT Ni!!!
Sorry for the caps, but it's just so silly. Humans don't posses precognitive powers and Ni doms aren't unicorns.



> The reason Ni is perceived as mystical is in a way simple LOL. It's that Ni-doms suppress sensation, and also suppress the objectivity of intuition.
> 
> In reality, "mystical" is more describing the introversion of Ni than the fact that it is N. It's just simply that N is not tied to the sensory that makes it hard to pin down.


^ This is the mysticism if Ni explained as it should be. Thank you @bearotter.

All introverts are seen as mystical FYI.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

I actually have very high Ni but it seems like a dumb function. Like, I could ask an INXJ why s/he thinks something and s/he'd be dumbfounded. Most of their Ni "hunches" are bullshit.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

_
To me, Ni is just knowledge with a lot of confirmation bias because of course, anything I think that is wrong gets forgotten. So I'm always right because I forgot all the times I was wrong. With enough practise I start to be right more than wrong anyway. And being an INFJ, my main area of interest is people of course so after a while, I learn how to dissect people; once you know what's someone's fear are (which people give away much more easily than they realise) you know how they work. You have to remember we analyse everything, from tone of voice, to the tiniest gestures. All this information helps someone create a very good knowledge base of who you are._

Ah! This sings to me. I used an analogy earlier that Ne was a disorganized black widow web, and Ni was a neatly ordered spider web. Ne is a jumble because we don't prune out anything and is why we make odd-ball connections. But the confirmation-bias keeps your web constrained to "correct" patterns -- so then your J is what causes your confirmation bias, and my P causes me to be a causal horder and leave my web a mess. 

_
What you are talking about are "hunches" and I get these a lot. FML. I just seem to know things because so much random information hangs around in my brain but I haven't processed it in any way. It just stays in my mind as information e.g.:
_

You're description of "hunches" are how I experience Ne as well. An idea will just come to me and I *know* it's correct -- but then the cogs start to turn and I'll reason out why it *should* be correct and I'll put together all the pieces. And then an INTP comes along and shows me why I'm clearly *wrong*. :frustrating:


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

azdahak said:


> _
> To me, Ni is just knowledge with a lot of confirmation bias because of course, anything I think that is wrong gets forgotten. So I'm always right because I forgot all the times I was wrong. With enough practise I start to be right more than wrong anyway. And being an INFJ, my main area of interest is people of course so after a while, I learn how to dissect people; once you know what's someone's fear are (which people give away much more easily than they realise) you know how they work. You have to remember we analyse everything, from tone of voice, to the tiniest gestures. All this information helps someone create a very good knowledge base of who you are._
> 
> Ah! This sings to me. I used an analogy earlier that Ne was a disorganized black widow web, and Ni was a neatly ordered spider web. Ne is a jumble because we don't prune out anything and is why we make odd-ball connections. But the confirmation-bias keeps your web constrained to "correct" patterns -- so then your J is what causes your confirmation bias, and my P causes me to be a causal horder and leave my web a mess.
> ...


Don't you just love to be corrected by an INTP? If I'm not corrected at least once during the conversation, I take it personally and assume it's because they don't think I'm worth speaking to anyway lol.
Hahaha mine tells me I'm wrong even when i know i'm right. Frustrates the hell out of me, but I've learnt that if I want to convince her, I just have to explain myself better. Then she sees it from my POV. 


Edit: Yeah my "J" forces me to discard possibilities that don't seem "right" almost immediately. It almost feels like I'm betraying my body by entertaining _any_ possibility that seems less correct than another. If I go for something that seems right at the minute but with more information, it turns out it's incorrect, fair enough. But that's the only instance where I would ever consider something incorrect. I don't have the time nor patience for it, (un)fortunately?


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

azdahak said:


> You keep insisting I'm implying you're stupid. I've just been disagreeing with your interpretation of MBTI. For instance, you claim that tertiary Ti is close in strength to secondary Fe. Then why shouldn't it be the same for me with my Ti>Fe? Are INTJs and INFJs that close in their outlooks? Why bother talking about NTs and NFs at all if they're that close. Maybe your Fe doesn't work well over the Internet. I'll try to use more emoticons.
> 
> I don't really see how your comments are responding to my points rather than simply being dismissive. For instance, you say "it's not hard to predict some things by mere observation...." to dismiss my examples, but yet this is a discussion about a mere perceiving function. Your "hypothetical" is some sort of bizarre response to a perceived ad hominem....you assumed I was talking about you, and you assumed I think you're young, otherwise why go into all that defensive language? Sometimes a hypothetical, is just a hypothetical.
> 
> In any case your last example sounds like a classic example of conformation bias. Otherwise you're implying that your Ni let's you predict the future, and that Ni is somehow a special, mystical cognitive function. If you want to believe that, go head. But you haven't provided a persuasive argument for me to conclude that. I'll just keep to the assumption that Ni users are human.


I didn't know you answered me because I wasn't mentioned in your post. I did think you were implying I was young as I was arguing that there was at least an experientially mystical aspect to Ni and saying that it aligns with my personal experience and in your answer you said


> I reject the notion that Ni is in any way a metaphysical cognitive function. But I can understand how say a young person dominated by Ni with a weak secondary can get so bamboozled by N's amazing perspicacity that they think the hunch is coming from somewhere else besides their own brain.


But it's whatever. I realize this is an MBTI forum and the culture here is to have these conversations in a specific manner which to me separates the theoretical functions from their human context. It's been really bothering me and to be honest to the way the amount of typism in the posts is sometimes a bit much. If for example this were a thread about relationships and you were to post your opinion on a matter and I would say "Are you sure you're not just unable to understand the situation correctly with your tertiary Fe"... I don't like being talked down to by people I don't know.
In some respect the way you're discussing this issue is "the usual way" subjects are discussed here, so I give you that and I don't usually bother answering these chains because of the status quo in the western world is so heavily influenced by scientific rationalism that every discussion will automatically turn into just this. Someone posts a link to the wikipedia page for "confirmation bias", is usually inevitable. 



> Otherwise you're implying that your Ni let's you predict the future, and that Ni is somehow a special, mystical cognitive function. If you want to believe that, go head. But you haven't provided a persuasive argument for me to conclude that. I'll just keep to the assumption that Ni users are human.


I didn't say it is special in any way. I'm saying I've experienced a situation where I've had a sudden moment of knowing something I cannot possibly know by subconscious deduction, unless the universe does not operate the way everyday (non scientist) people think (based on antiquated beliefs). From discussions on the INFJ forum you can gather many are interested in the theory of the holographic universe for example. Maybe that will give the rational scientific explanation for the phenomena I'm referring to but I'm saying it still exists. Saying it doesn't because there is no logical proof and I'm biased is why I don't bother sharing them. I don't personally think there is anything special about ME. There is something special about the universe and we are all more connected than we currently believe. I'm coming from a kind of a pan-experientialist pov. Which brings me back to my original post :


> I would say that saying Ni is not mystical is also a give away that one's worldview does not include a mystical aspect being a dimension of Reality. I think there is one and the insights I have had come to me in my subjective experience have appeared to have a mystical unexplainable character with which I'm referring to something that is not explainable by a logical process as some things could in no way be known. Some things could... Like for example reading a book on economics, thinking of a friend's relationship and meeting an old friend at a Karaoke place and somehow elements of my mental activities of the past month suddenly coming together into a realization that my friend's sibling who committed suicide had aspergers. It was actually so I learned. But things like having a certainty my infertile friend would have a son in a few years is in no way rational and that too happened. Not that I spoke about it to anyone. I think there is a mystical aspect to reality. I am not going to elaborate further on that but I think there is and I think there is a mystical aspect to Ni. Mostly mundane, but not entirely. It's a matter of your world view I suppose. For some it's an "unexplainable" aspect. For me i prefer mystical due to my ontological views. Views based on intuitive insights so I feel they are very much linked. That's just me.


Mystical being used in this post because it is to me the most appropriate existing word for it.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Vanishing Point said:


> . If for example this were a thread about relationships and you were to post your opinion on a matter and I would say "Are you sure you're not just unable to understand the situation correctly with your tertiary Fe"... I don't like being talked down to by people I don't


If you said that to me, I would pause and consider that might actually be the case, because it would be a simple statement of fact. Then I would re-examine my notions and try to change my perspective to test my biases. I would solicit other opinions. Your opinion might influence mine, and I may even decide I was completely wrong. I know that's a very rational, Western "scientific method" kind of thing to do, but it wouldn't even dawn on me to construe someone's opinion as a personal attack. 

In any case, I was interested in this topic to learn how people see their own Ni (in comparison to how i see my Ne) , and you've been helpful in that regard.

By the way, the "holographic universe" isn't a theory, it's a made-up New Age bullshit pseudo-religion.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

_Don't you just love to be corrected by an INTP? If I'm not corrected at least once during the conversation, I take it personally and assume it's because they don't think I'm worth speaking to anyway lol._
_Hahaha mine tells me I'm wrong even when i know i'm right. Frustrates the hell out of me, but I've learnt that if I want to convince her, I just have to explain myself better. Then she sees it from my POV. _



I don't mind xNTP "corrections" at all...they're never personal. And the INTPs are so matter-of-fact about it....like they're shooing a scorpion off your shoulder and saving you from the sting of untruth. But some INTJs can get me in a competition loop where I just _have_ to win the argument to stop them from getting all puffed up and crowing their triumph.


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

azdahak said:


> If you said that to me, I would pause and consider that might actually be the case, because it would be a simple statement of fact. Then I would re-examine my notions and try to change my perspective to test my biases. I would solicit other opinions. Your opinion might influence mine, and I may even decide I was completely wrong. I know that's a very rational, Western "scientific method" kind of thing to do, but it wouldn't even dawn on me to construe someone's opinion as a personal attack.
> 
> In any case, I was interested in this topic to learn how people see their own Ni (in comparison to how i see my Ne) , and you've been helpful in that regard.
> 
> By the way, the "holographic universe" isn't a theory, it's a made-up New Age bullshit pseudo-religion.


Well it's about the context of the conversation. If someone wears an I love cats shirt it's kind of a faux pas to state that "Ardent cat lovers are usually older ladies who have failed to find a mate perhaps due to some personal innate character flaw" even if it were your opinion and even if it were more likely to actually be so objectively. If the lady wearing the "I love cats shirt" gets then offended and gets snarky, you had it coming buddy. :dry: That's just how it is. You can't expect people to not take it personal. Most likely they will and will be offended. 
The holographic universe theory could well be bullshit. You got me there. I've not kept savvy on what's current because I spend my time on keeping informed on things in my own non science related field. I happily categorize myself in the regular Joe everyday with antiquated beliefs and it appears so that I've possibly managed to prove that. I'm not a scientist, which is why I have to contend to reading what the papers put out and have to rely on that. If The New Scientist et al. wants to publish articles on pseudoscientific new age bullshit and present them as something legit I'm going to continue to fall for it like a sucker. :laughing:


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

superdooper said:


> Edit: Yeah my "J" forces me to discard possibilities that don't seem "right" almost immediately. It almost feels like I'm betraying my body by entertaining _any_ possibility that seems less correct than another. If I go for something that seems right at the minute but with more information, it turns out it's incorrect, fair enough. But that's the only instance where I would ever consider something incorrect. I don't have the time nor patience for it, (un)fortunately?


Thank you for this. I have been bashed as typist when I called the J function (and thus interpreted as all Js) as a simplification of the world; that Ps sees it more "as is". Remain open, and thus do not like to cook it down to ONE decision leaving all other possibilities out. I stated that Ps might find the J "stubbornness", "single-mindedness", "need to control the environment" and "simplifying" limitating. But that the Js surely would get more done and get closer to where they want to go. A P knows that where he wants to go today is not necessarily where he wants to go tomorrow... Perhaps the view of the scenery gives new possibilities and insights after taking the next step? I have read about and have as a possible hypothesis that J people love to (NEED to) structure the world due to some inner chaos. I occasionally live in chaos (according to my friends and relatives) but still am highly functional and super-organized inside (ADHD-tendencies and Idearrhea aside).

You insightful Js, I wonder how it to walk your shoes? Would ADD-meds give that kind of experience?)

On topic: I think I said it very short earlier, and I state it again: I BELIEVE that Ni cannot be followed as easily as Ne. Many have already explained why and how in the thread. Ne is a crazy energizer bunny jumping all over the place but it follows a kind of logic and law of association. Thus it actually can be traced and with training even put on a leash and taught a few tricks.

I believe that big-picture N is somewhat the same, namely processing of more meta data (perceptions and comparisons of similar situations and motives/causes/reasons and outcomes). I believe that as N is a perception it amasses a lot more data than S. If it was a photo S would be makro and N wide angle, same resolution. N can see the reflection of the car coming around the corner towards the playing child, whereas the S(e) can have a super good and clear cut image of that child. S quickly sees the child and notices what it wants to. It might notice the color of the shoelaces and the bruise on the knee, something that Ns might not (at least immediately).
But after all, a child is a child and the focus and concentrations of the S can quickly pass on to other things unless it really wants to stay there. I ponder if Ns need to process the "picture" longer as there is more "data" in it (but not more resolution and pixel information) , such as more shapes, interconnects and relations (objects, physics and feelings).

This N processing I do think is much of N(i), and that it is not (in a "healthy" individual) done on a level of consciousness that intrudes on our active thinking/conscious efforts. Since associations and calculations about previous events always are going on and compares to the present now and its association sometimes a conclusion comes out and rears it head into the conscious mind. An aha moment occurs. An insight. 

My Ne is very ADHD. I used to call it "my second brain", and I could not get it to stop. It always calculated and noted stuff that happened, like a computer. It is a constant, slightly mad advisor that constantly mumbles facts and possibilities about what happens as I see (Perceive) them, or analyzing about old events ( filling gaps w Si) when I close my eyes. It spews out ideas. I recently was part of an experiment where I should design/illustrate advanced innovations and technical systems in a five minute timeframe, including listening to their ideas. It was no problem for me (not intended as bragging but as an example of Ne and why it is associated w creativity). I have learned to harness that power. I do believe that in some cases -when it reigns unchecked (silenced or filtered) by some mechanism that mad murmur will be the cause of an ADHD diagnosis.

So, Ne might be more "conscious" but wild processing of meta-data, and Ni might be suppressed processing (for the benefit/protection of conscious focus; could be actual myelin nerve coating thickness that does it) but who shouts out answers to the consciousness when an association/similar situation is Perceived. Judging could be a part of such a "silencing" defense as Ni-doms are Js, right?

Remember, we all use all functions in the theory (it is a Theory). I myself have almost as high Ni as Ne in tests. As I got older I also try to listen less to the Ne-layer as most is about dangers that can happen, causing unnecessary fear and doubt. That is in my theorizing the evolutionary boon of it - prediction of not obvious outcomes.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

@ENTPreneur
There is a lot to get through here... I will call Ne-rrahea, because you just draw so many random things into your quote haha. Alright, I will try and address them one by one, in a Ni fashion. I know how upset ENTP's can get when they feel like people dismiss what they have to say. Okies, let's go!


> Thank you for this. I have been bashed as typist when I called the J function (and thus interpreted as all Js) as a simplification of the world; that Ps sees it more "as is". Remain open, and thus do not like to cook it down to ONE decision leaving all other possibilities out. I stated that Ps might find the J "stubbornness", "single-mindedness", "need to control the environment" and "simplifying" limitating. But that the Js surely would get more done and get closer to where they want to go. _A P knows that where he wants to go today is not necessarily where he wants to go tomorrow..._ Perhaps the view of the scenery gives new possibilities and insights after taking the next step? I have read about and have as a possible hypothesis that J people love to (NEED to) structure the world due to some inner chaos. I occasionally live in chaos (according to my friends and relatives) but still am highly functional and super-organized inside (ADHD-tendencies and Idearrhea aside).


To be honest, that's all it is. I can't focus on more than one thing at a time very well. In fact, I don't do it well at all and when someone is trying to direct my attention in many directions I get irritated, fast.
So in order to keep focused, I do, in a way, create a simplification of the world and focus on it. I like to call it being in Flow. It's not necessarily that ALL my attention is on this thing I am doing in the real world (in fact it is more likely that in a state of Flow, I am thinking about other things in my mind, but in the real world I am absorbed by the one thing I am doing.) And in doing one thing in the real world, I am able to think many thoughts. If that makes sense? So it's like shutting out, outside distractions so I can focus on what's going on inside my mind.
I can't really have that, know where I am going today and not tomorrow? NO THANK YOU. It sounds really absurd to me. But hey, I'm a J and you're a P 
Yes I need structure but I am open to P like randomness and I do enjoy it, so long as I know that at the end of the day I can go back into my J world.


> You insightful Js, I wonder how it to walk your shoes? Would ADD-meds give that kind of experience?)


Any drug that could make you hyper focused is what it's like to be in Ni-mode. I have a list of some if you are into that sort of thing, PM me 


> On topic: I think I said it very short earlier, and I state it again: I BELIEVE that Ni cannot be followed as easily as Ne. Many have already explained why and how in the thread. Ne is a crazy energizer bunny jumping all over the place but it follows a kind of logic and law of association. Thus it actually can be traced and with training even put on a leash and taught a few tricks.


I'm not sure I understand, why is it hard to follow Ni? It's convergent thinking versus divergent thinking. All I do is connect two ideas in a way that seems correct. That's all.

So if i had two words: EGG and SPOON. 
I would make the connection: Beat EGG With SPOON and leave it at that - because it seems most likely and thus most correct to me. To a Ne user, I'm sure you could come up with 10 million connections between those two words if given enough time and you weren't distracted by something else lol.


> I believe that big-picture N is somewhat the same, namely processing of more meta data (perceptions and comparisons of similar situations and motives/causes/reasons and outcomes). I believe that as N is a perception it amasses a lot more data than S. If it was a photo S would be makro and N wide angle, same resolution. N can see the reflection of the car coming around the corner towards the playing child, whereas the S(e) can have a super good and clear cut image of that child. S quickly sees the child and notices what it wants to. It might notice the color of the shoelaces and the bruise on the knee, something that Ns might not (at least immediately).
> But after all, a child is a child and the focus and concentrations of the S can quickly pass on to other things unless it really wants to stay there. I ponder if Ns need to process the "picture" longer as there is more "data" in it (but not more resolution and pixel information) , such as more shapes, interconnects and relations (objects, physics and feelings).
> This N processing I do think is much of N(i), and that it is not (in a "healthy" individual) _done on a level of consciousness that intrudes on our active thinking/conscious efforts. Since associations and calculations about previous events always are going on and compares to the present now and its association sometimes a conclusion comes out and rears it head into the conscious mind. An aha moment occurs. An insight._


I like to think of intuition as just connecting ideas in a nonlinear fashion. So iNtuitives can go from A to D in one step and not need to understand HOW we got from A to D.
But to S types they MUST understand how A follows on to B follows on to C follows on D.

This is why the education system is HELL for iNtuitives.

I totally agree with that final bit you said.


> My Ne is very ADHD. I used to call it "my second brain", and I could not get it to stop. It always calculated and noted stuff that happened, like a computer. It is a constant, slightly mad advisor that constantly mumbles facts and possibilities about what happens as I see (Perceive) them, or analyzing about old events ( filling gaps w Si) when I close my eyes. It spews out ideas. I recently was part of an experiment where I should design/illustrate advanced innovations and technical systems in a five minute timeframe, including listening to their ideas. It was no problem for me (not intended as bragging but as an example of Ne and why it is associated w creativity). I have learned to harness that power. I do believe that in some cases -when it reigns unchecked (silenced or filtered) by some mechanism that mad murmur will be the cause of an ADHD diagnosis.
> 
> So, Ne might be more "conscious" but wild processing of meta-data, and Ni might be suppressed processing _(for the benefit/protection of conscious focus; could be actual myelin nerve coating thickness that does it) but who shouts out answers to the consciousness when an association/similar situation is Perceived. Judging could be a part of such a "silencing" defense as Ni-doms are Js, right?_


I suppose that's right. I don't think I consciously suppress though, I just want THE answer, not any possible answer. That is my aim so that is my focus. If that makes sense?
Lost me there, that language is a, a bit over my head :crazy:

I'm sure INFJ's are perceivers though. We look for information it's just how we filter this information that makes us "Judgers" in the loosest sense of the word. I don't manipulate data as it enters my mind, I just discard if it doesn't make sense/seem likely.


> Remember, we all use all functions in the theory (it is a Theory). I myself have almost as high Ni as Ne in tests. As I got older I also try to listen less to the Ne-layer as most is about dangers that can happen, causing unnecessary fear and doubt. That is in my theorizing the evolutionary boon of it - prediction of not obvious outcomes.


I totally agree. I try to expose myself to Ne users (read stalk ENTP's) as much as possible because I really do enjoy the random spurting out of ideas. It's just making sure our core values don't clash that always seems to cause a problem. And by that I mean ENTP's care about the truth before anything and I care about harmony. This is bound to cause problems, sigh. Such a shame.

Edit: I suppose this is one of the reasons I think INFJ's are "better" for ENTP's, though both INTJ's and INFJ's are both Ni-doms. I'm much more open to that chaos and less judgmental of it than an INTJ would be. But I think it's because I have Fe and not Fi, like an INTJ. COULD BE WRONG THOUGH.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

_
Any drug that could make you hyper focused is what it's like to be in Ni-mode. I have a list of some if you are into that sort of thing, PM me _

I want the drug found here : Limitless (2011) - IMDb

_So if i had two words: EGG and SPOON. 
I would make the connection: Beat EGG With SPOON and leave it at that - because it seems most likely and thus most correct to me. distracted by something else lol.
_
Stop beating your eggs with a spoon. They deserve your love, not your temper. 

_I like to think of intuition as just connecting ideas in a nonlinear fashion. So iNtuitives can go from A to D in one step and not need to understand HOW we got from A to D.
But to S types they MUST understand how A follows on to B follows on to C follows on D.
_
Go play the ISTJ word game and you'll see that A->B->C->D so clearly.

Here's my current schematic on this. I see N as a sort of meta-S, and T as a sort of meta-F.

SF: A ~ B 
ST: A -> B 
NF: a ~~ b
NT: a => b

SF: focused on data, with subjective or (irrational) correlations I like smoking so I do it.
ST: focused on data, but makes logical or causal connections. Smoking causes cancer, so I don't. 
NF: focused on the connections, but personal or irrational correlations 
Chemicals are not natural. Smoke has chemicals and causes 
cancer. ~ Organic foods are healthy.
NT: focused on logical, causal connections. Everything is chemicals. Pesticides are chemicals. Pesticides 
don't effect plants. => Organic foods are not superior. 

_This is why the education system is HELL for iNtuitives.

_You said it.
_Edit: I suppose this is one of the reasons I think INFJ's are "better" for ENTP's, though both INTJ's and INFJ's are both Ni-doms. I'm much more open to that chaos and less judgmental of it than an INTJ would be. But I think it's because I have Fe and not Fi, like an INTJ. COULD BE WRONG THOUGH.
_
I think the communication problems we could have with INTJs and INFJs stem from similar reasons. It seems that INFJs/INTJs are both personally invested in their opinions in a way ENTPs simply are not, I guess because of the strong subjective way Ni organizes. So if we counter too strongly, an INFJ can get offended (since we're contradicting their wisdom) and INTJs get insulted (since we're contradicting their acumen). We don't get insulted or offended easily because we're not so attached to our ideas and morals. Moreover, it seems to me that INTJs/INFJs need constant validation -- they want to hear we think their ideas are sound and valid. Unfortunately ENTPs don't seem to be generous complimenters. If an ENTP says to you, "I'm really impressed" or something similar. That is -exactly- what they mean. ENTPs don't really need validation with our ideas, because we're apt to abandon them if we stumble upon something better. What ENTPs need is validation of -themselves-. You can dismiss our ideas and ideals, but if you dismiss -us-, we're done with you forever and always, after we pull all the pieces of out soul back together. Unfortunately, INTJs are good at inadvertently crossing that line. But I imagine if an INFJ wanted to really wound an ENTP, they would be one of the few creatures who would instinctively know where our stab our cold, bitter, hearts.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

azdahak said:


> I want the drug found here : Limitless (2011) - IMDb


LOL, no it's not as strong as that, but it still makes a visible difference.



> Stop beating your eggs with a spoon. They deserve your love, not your temper.


Haha, yes sir.



> Go play the ISTJ word game and you'll see that A->B->C->D so clearly.
> 
> Here's my current schematic on this. I see N as a sort of meta-S, and T as a sort of meta-F.
> 
> ...


Depends how well versed the NF is on the actual science behind organic foods, because then they would know there's not much difference between organic and battery food  So I wouldn't say they are ALL irrational, necessarily. Personal I agree with though.
I think Fe- NFs (NFJ's) and Fi-NFs (NFP's) are really, really different. For example. An NFJ devoted to a cause would be devoted to one that brings everybody closer in a loving way, eg religion and other spiritualist type stuff. But an NFP devoted to a cause is trying to fight for rights. Like they believe in the struggle. I don't, I just think the way to bring everyone together is to spread love, not force it. If that makes sense?

Like think Martin Luther King Jr (NFJ) vs Malcolm X (NFP).



> I think the communication problems we could have with INTJs and INFJs stem from similar reasons. It seems that INFJs/INTJs are *both personally invested in their opinions in a way ENTPs simply are not,* I guess because of the strong subjective way Ni organizes. So if we counter too strongly, an INFJ can get offended (since we're contradicting their wisdom) and INTJs get insulted (since we're contradicting their acumen). We don't get insulted or offended easily because we're not so attached to our ideas and morals. Moreover, it *seems to me that INTJs/INFJs need constant validation -- they want to hear we think their ideas are sound and valid.* Unfortunately ENTPs don't seem to be generous complimenters. If an ENTP says to you, "I'm really impressed" or something similar. That is -exactly- what they mean. ENTPs don't really need validation with our ideas, because we're apt to abandon them if we stumble upon something better. What ENTPs need is validation of -themselves-. You can dismiss our ideas and ideals, but if you dismiss -us-, we're done with you forever and always, after we pull all the pieces of out soul back together. Unfortunately, INTJs are good at inadvertently crossing that line. *But I imagine if an INFJ wanted to really wound an ENTP, they would be one of the few creatures who would instinctively know where our stab our cold, bitter, hearts.*


LOL so true. I will try and expand on that a bit on that though.
I am invested in my personal opinions because I spent so much time making sure they are right. It's the same with an INTP, the biggest insult you can give an INTP is to tell them their idea is rubbish just because you don't understand it. Same way for Ni-doms. Believe me, even if the idea is wrong, I have spent so, much, brain power getting there, so on the information I have, it's the most correct to me. ENTP's aren't so careful about spurting out ideas, because like you said, you aren't as personally invested in them.

I don't actually need validation though, in fact I don't like to share my insights into people, what if they are wrong? Then I will sound stupid. And I'd hate that. But if I do share my idea, then yes I will want to know if my ideas are wrong so I can correct them. I'm not sure about that part actually, I think it depends how confident and self-assured said INXJ is. If I know somebody is spouting is rubbish, I just ignore them. Their ignorance doesn't need to affect me. Why should I let it?

Yes, I hate that part about me the most. In anger, I will purposefully say the exact thing I know will hurt someone. It's not my greatest quality but I don't deal with anger very well. I think it's an enneagram thing but type 9's are scared of anger so we try to repress and avoid it. When it comes out though, geez do I hate myself for it after. I'm trying I guess. I mean, you should have seen the way I would go on at my ex boyfriend. Jesus. Why he still insists on being friends with me after everything I said to him is honestly beyond me :sad: makes me feel so guilty. So now, if I know someone is going to bring out that side to me, I just prefer to avoid them. Save us both the pain ><


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

"I think the communication problems we could have with INTJs and INFJs stem from similar reasons. It seems that INFJs/INTJs are both personally invested in their opinions in a way ENTPs simply are not, I guess because of the strong subjective way Ni organizes. So if we counter too strongly, an INFJ can get offended (since we're contradicting their wisdom) and INTJs get insulted (since we're contradicting their acumen). We don't get insulted or offended easily because we're not so attached to our ideas and morals. Moreover, it seems to me that INTJs/INFJs need constant validation -- they want to hear we think their ideas are sound and valid. Unfortunately ENTPs don't seem to be generous complimenters. If an ENTP says to you, "I'm really impressed" or something similar. That is -exactly- what they mean. ENTPs don't really need validation with our ideas, because we're apt to abandon them if we stumble upon something better. What ENTPs need is validation of -themselves-. You can dismiss our ideas and ideals, but if you dismiss -us-, we're done with you forever and always, after we pull all the pieces of out soul back together. Unfortunately, INTJs are good at inadvertently crossing that line. But I imagine if an INFJ wanted to really wound an ENTP, they would be one of the few creatures who would instinctively know where our stab our cold, bitter, hearts."

So true. Especially that about investment. Often people get very upset because they think that I am (sound) so sure about my stuff and thus our views clash with emotional fervor (from the opponent) immediately. This always baffles me: Any new piece of information or input would make me change my mind in an instant. (doesnt happen to often; We also think things through). I truly wish good, and always give the other person a second and third chance (Did he call em adickhead? No I must have been mistaken... Or maybe his wife left him this morning.... Etc). I would wish for the same in return. I think the world would be a better place for it.

I certainly dont wish to be viewed as a moron, but at the core I wish to be loved as a whole person. INFs really can rip your heart out and pee on it. When I anger them, I probably say some Truth that is blunt or offends them. Sometimes to be helpful, sometimes because of bad judgement. Never because of malice.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

ENTPreneur said:


> Never because of malice.[/COLOR]


Oh god, that broke my heart a little. I always forget that bit. In the heat of anger, nothing registers anymore.
Damn it. That's truly made me feel awful.

Can we hug it out?


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

superdooper said:


> Oh god, that broke my heart a little. I always forget that bit. In the heat of anger, nothing registers anymore.
> Damn it. That's truly made me feel awful.
> 
> Can we hug it out?


Too late for that, dont you think.... *sob*


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

ENTPreneur said:


> Too late for that, dont you think.... *sob*


Oh my god. :crying:
I'm so sorry man.
Fuck, we can be so cruel in our words, but we don't mean it honestly. 
It's just heated words are the only way we know how to communicate anger.

I'm just going to put my arms around you anyway because I need to feel the love.

Otherwise I'm going to do something stupid like write a love letter to everyone who's ever offended me apologising for being offended. LOL.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

superdooper said:


> Oh my god. :crying:
> I'm so sorry man.
> Fuck, we can be so cruel in our words, but we don't mean it honestly.
> It's just heated words are the only way we know how to communicate anger.
> ...


Oh, I know.... " To forgive is to love".
You get violent when angry too? Throw stuff around? Bite?


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

ENTPreneur said:


> Oh, I know.... " To forgive is to love".
> You get violent when angry too? Throw stuff around?* Bite?*


LOL, Not quite you kinky beast 
No, I just rip people apart with my words then storm out. Then vow I will never speak to that person again.
Then sleep on it, and in the morning send them a message apologising for all the bad things I said and say it's best we stay away from each other because I become so mean I don't know how to not do it.
Then sleep on it some more, and that morning send them another message begging for forgiveness in some kind of quirky way in a desperate attempt to reestablish our connection.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

superdooper said:


> LOL, Not quite you kinky beast
> No, I just rip people apart with my words then storm out. Then vow I will never speak to that person again.
> Then sleep on it, and in the morning send them a message apologising for all the bad things I said and say it's best we stay away from each other because I become so mean I don't know how to not do it.
> Then sleep on it some more, and that morning send them another message begging for forgiveness in some kind of quirky way in a desperate attempt to reestablish our connection.


Ok, decent enough. Had my share of unhealthy people around me.... Bad experiences as they say. Lets just say that a flying saucer is no longer a UFO in my book...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I tend to find the Ni types more down-to-Earth than the Ne ones (like, they just have hunches - the Ne types merge their hunches with outside data readily). Ni and Si can only be inferred from the outside (often no easy task) - you have to look for their inferior), while Ne and Se tend to be seen in how a person deals with present data/implications. The quirkiness that gets associated with Ne is actually Si though (so, the eccentricities of these types might often be an inferior Si thing and not really an Ne thing).


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I tend to find the Ni types more down-to-Earth than the Ne ones (like, they just have hunches - the Ne types merge their hunches with outside data readily). Ni and Si can only be inferred from the outside (often no easy task) - you have to look for their inferior), while Ne and Se tend to be seen in how a person deals with present data/implications. The quirkiness that gets associated with Ne is actually Si though (so, the eccentricities of these types might often be an inferior Si thing and not really an Ne thing).



I don't feel I merge my hunches with outside data (I see this as more of an Ni thing -- bringing a subconscious hunch into the limelight). I never just suddenly get an idea that's disconnected from my experience, but rather they come as responses to observations, thoughts, sensations, or feelings. ENTPs are extroverts -- we need rich and novel stimuli to be able to fully use Ne. If we're isolated and living in sensory impoverishment, in routine, then our Ne begins to overreach and we start making wild and dysfunctional hunches, which Ti is more than happy to overanalyze and try to make logical and precise. 

If quirkiness associated with Si, then why aren't ISTJs utter oddballs rather than being the most 'stay the course' of all types?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

azdahak said:


> I don't feel I merge my hunches with outside data (I see this as more of an Ni thing -- bringing a subconscious hunch into the limelight). I never just suddenly get an idea that's disconnected from my experience, but rather they come as responses to observations, thoughts, sensations, or feelings. ENTPs are extroverts -- we need rich and novel stimuli to be able to fully use Ne. If we're isolated and living in sensory impoverishment, in routine, then our Ne begins to overreach and we start making wild and dysfunctional hunches, which Ti is more than happy to overanalyze and try to make logical and precise.
> 
> If quirkiness associated with Si, then why aren't ISTJs utter oddballs rather than being the most 'stay the course' of all types?


Well, Ne is all about "stimuli" as you put it - I mean, you just answered what I said about merging hunches with outside data. And inferior Si probably is what makes Ne doms prone to seeming a bit out there - the fact that it's inferior in quality (just really unrelated to the real world). In dominant form, it would be adapted to the real world and its expectations.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, Ne is all about "stimuli" as you put it - I mean, you just answered what I said about merging hunches with outside data. And inferior Si probably is what makes Ne doms prone to seeming a bit out there - the fact that it's inferior in quality (just really unrelated to the real world). In dominant form, it would be adapted to the real world and its expectations.



Merging implies that my hunches are *separate* from outside data. I believe they arise in *response* to data. 

I've always considered Si to be a grounding function, given that it compares present sensations with past experiences. It gives us the sense of the familiar, so our Ne doesn't run wild with new ideas in common familiar circumstances. 

When we see a red traffic light, we remember that it soon will turn green, because it -always- does that. We don't engage our Ne and consider wild and improbable ideas about what will happen, because our Si acts as a basic filter for common everyday experiences. 

I would say *without* Si, we would come of as being truly random, in denial of reality and wont to expect and do unpredictable things. 


If you look at the ISTJ in comparison with Si >.>.>Ne. At their worst (weak Ne) they expect everything to always and forever work the same, and can't deal when something is suddenly changed in their environment.


----------



## The Madman (Feb 20, 2013)

azdahak said:


> If quirkiness associated with Si, then why aren't ISTJs utter oddballs rather than being the most 'stay the course' of all types?


Si connects what it perceives to the individual's past memories and experiences. It is limited to the past memories and experiences of the individual. The perceptions of an individual with dominant Si and a reasonably average past life will seem reasonably average, due to the memories and experiences of the individual being mainly average. Of course, an individual with dominant Si and a bizarre past life will seem pretty bizarre in his/her perceptions. Si has the potential to be either average or bizarre. It depends on the individual's past experiences.


----------

