# Introverted Intuition, how "unconscious" is it?



## QueenAtaraxia (Nov 10, 2015)

Is introverted intuition really that unconscious? How come I see people posting about how they piece together their visions but Jung says that these visions are largely unconscious? Wouldn't extraverted intuition notice potential in an object and try to flesh it out from there, whereas introverted intuition is just watching the picture form and fade, not really trying to create something new with it?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

ButYouWill said:


> Is introverted intuition really that unconscious? How come I see people posting about how they piece together their visions but Jung says that these visions are largely unconscious? Wouldn't extraverted intuition notice potential in an object and try to flesh it out from there, whereas introverted intuition is just watching the picture form and fade, not really trying to create something new with it?


Nah, Ni is more internal, so it's harder to see, it just "happens" when you're not really paying attention to it. 

When a Ne dom is processing, EVERYONE knows it. They are animated and they talk to themselves out loud more than Ni. They ask: "What if this, or that?" Ne is more experimental, it's messy, and it usually takes more chances. It's a "quick and dirty" answer, not the best answer. 

A Ni dom will kind of quietly walk over and push a button without saying much and suddenly it's fixed. Half the time, people won't even realize they did anything. Hell, they may not realize it! Ni is more outcomes based. It doesn't make a mess trying this or that, it tries to zero in on the better answer and simply do that.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

It seems to me that all functions work in the unconscious, some are just closer to awareness. But I will say that it seems that Ni is the most symbolic and abstract of them all.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

jkp said:


> It seems to me that all functions work in the unconscious, some are just closer to awareness. But I will say that it seems that Ni is the most symbolic and abstract of them all.


Bingo.

And on a related note, blocking the unconscious is the surest way to stop coming up with insights no matter which function you're using.


----------



## Sour Roses (Dec 30, 2015)

So now that the Ne users have tried to describe a function they don't have... I will offer, as a Ni user like you apparently are, Op...

It's both for me. 

The classic "aha" moment is because dom-Ni almost never sleeps, even when one is not focusing on it. It plugs away in the background and just sets off the alert for attention when the problem is actually solved.

But Ni is also very available to be used intentionally and seen in process when it's the dom function.
I use it this way much of the time, because I have a lot of time to devote to my ponderings.

This use is mentioned in some texts, as Ni doms having greater access to the unconscious mind. We are also the most internally visual of all types, per Dario Nardi's studies. 

Ni does have a controllable aspect to it. Many INFJ's have reported in the subforum to making "movies" in their head, which I can personally attest takes control, as I must go back over the content again and again before it is fully completed into something that seems real.

Introverted intuition is just that, highly internal, and therefore works things over endlessly in the mind without the need for the environment... so not hands on, nor does it need to test things to see how they work.
I've had a few inventions that have almost sounded like something a Ne user would come up with... except, they don't involve knowledge about how things work to base the new idea on. I just know they will. Because the deep meaning of things is related to functionality in a very intrinsic way. I just have no care to take inventions any further. As long as I can perfect a vision of such a thing in my head, I'm often satisfied. Ideal-related visions are different, Fe/Se drives for those to be manifested.

Ni is a perceiving function, and has the interesting ability to watch itself at work. That's why we do have the ability to be aware of it, and explains that connection to the unconscious mind. 
Watching Ni in action is an inward facing observation process.
Whereas Ne is focused outwardly, so seeing it in action is an outward facing observation process. 

Explaining that which faces inward though, is always more complicated than explaining the outwardly apparent. That's why Ni, Si, Fi, and Ti explanations can be harder to grasp than Ne, Se, Fe, or Te... at least from my perspective, anyway.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

I like to call it 'subconscious scanning' - I will say, when you ''daydream'' - your (Ni) is doing something, however, for innate (Ni) users it is so regularized that it is _unnoticed.
_
That is, 

(Ni) is like a printer - it's ''scanning'' + faxing multiple thing(s) subconsciously; I do not realize it is necessarily happening, but rather just an innate state of _cognitive-karate _ that occurs upon a ''spark'' or a 'vision' of the possible future-like things - the following function ''stamps'' the paper(s).

That is, you tell me ''I am going fishing on the bay,'' (&) request my thoughts on this, my Ni takes off in a 'vision'-like scanning processs with following functions _regulating_ them to give you a substantial answer and outcome.

For me, my (Ni) is constantly 'scanning' multiple option(s) - like _endless_ bubbles of random thoughts be spat out for no particular reasoning.

When I was younger; I found it more annoying - as I could not control this function to a degree; many times I would ''focus'' + go off into a stare (&) let my Ni run my life + fill of my head. My only release was writing about imaginary characters + random shit. I was never ''really there''.

My (Te) regulates these thoughts, so my Ni ''daydream'' is steady + rationalizes - to the external world; working with (J) it organizes these - to the best _abilities._ That is why INTP do not think like INTJ.

I find INTP very helpful, but *sloppy* in their thinking, for this reason.


Somedays, I do recognize my (Ni) working - often times than not, I let the *Ni-Machine* run, other times - it is a reflex, it is something innate that just occurs. 

I ''come up // scanning'' with different ideas - rather than ''create'' idea(s). This requires that weird ''ni daydream'' into the unknown.

My _thinking _process is merely;

_Ex;
_
_Probably this, what about this, possible this ... But, this, and that (&) How about this....
_


Most time(s) it comes in the form of a ''*LIGHT-BULB*'' - DING! - other times, it is more subtle - to put it short; I can recognize my (Ni) working, if it is my ''Ni'' I am looking for, other times, it is innate - and thus, I do not pay much attention nor acknowledge it or see it - I would say, I see more ''residue'' // left-overs of Ni - rather than the actual function.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

Yeah, it's unconscious as fuck. The way I like to think of Ni is that it's like a sea monster (tylosaurus proriger is a good one) surfacing from the depths. It is its own master and obeys no commands, takes no orders. It chooses when it wants to go for a dive and when it wants to come up to take a breath. The Ni-dom is like the planet, our body and psyche simply provide the environment for tylosaurus to do its thing in. And so, when it decides to come to the surface, we become aware of it. But it's been swimming around down there for who knows how long to formulate the idea. We have no awareness of what it is doing down there, and so, it's output ideas - when it decides to come to the surface - strike us as miraculous, as complete ideas with no trace of the procedure by which they were formed, i.e. we have no idea what tylosaurus was doing until it came up.


----------



## QueenAtaraxia (Nov 10, 2015)

Big Daddy Kane said:


> Yeah, it's unconscious as fuck. The way I like to think of Ni is that it's like a sea monster (tylosaurus proriger is a good one) surfacing from the depths. It is its own master and obeys no commands, takes no orders. It chooses when it wants to go for a dive and when it wants to come up to take a breath. The Ni-dom is like the planet, our body and psyche simply provide the environment for tylosaurus to do its thing in. And so, when it decides to come to the surface, we become aware of it. But it's been swimming around down there for who knows how long to formulate the idea. We have no awareness of what it is doing down there, and so, it's output ideas - when it decides to come to the surface - strike us as miraculous, as complete ideas with no trace of the procedure by which they were formed, i.e. we have no idea what tylosaurus was doing until it came up.


That makes sense. See, I have times like these but in between them I'm wondering if I'm another type, but if I am, I have no idea what my type would be. After reading Psychological Types, I have a little more of an understanding of the functions as they are often misinterpreted on many online sources, but I haven't come close to really identifying myself in one of them.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

ButYouWill said:


> Is introverted intuition really that unconscious? How come I see people posting about how they piece together their visions but Jung says that these visions are largely unconscious?


The contents of the visions come from the unconscious but the intuition is conscious or else there wouldn't be any intuitive dominant types


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

ButYouWill said:


> Is introverted intuition really that unconscious? How come I see people posting about how they piece together their visions but Jung says that these visions are largely unconscious? Wouldn't extraverted intuition notice potential in an object and try to flesh it out from there, whereas introverted intuition is just watching the picture form and fade, not really trying to create something new with it?


Both forms of intuition can do both things. Whenever I get an idea for a novel, rarely do I get a complete idea. In general I know the beginning and the end, and that's about all I know for sure about it. Everything else has to be fleshed out. Intuition works in generalities, so I would consider writers who get the whole story in one flash (a la Stephen King) the exception rather than the rule. And I even have to wonder if it's good that they do; there's no substitute for consciously working out your ideas intentionally and with purpose. If I was like King I'd be terrified that what I was putting down on paper is precisely what I wanted my message to be. Intuition may spark the fire, and it may be a big spark, but the flames must be maintained. Ni-doms can absolutely piece together their visions, but I would venture that there was an initial spark of inspiration.

So to answer your question, I'd say that of all the functions, intuition is probably the most unconscious. Jung even described it as "perception via the unconscious", and it's whole thing is that it perceives beyond what we are consciously aware of at any given moment. It's the explorer mapping out the unexplored places of the world.

And, broadly speaking, like some have already said, all functions are unconscious. They aren't operations like functions in math, they're mental perspective, broad definitions of what sort of things people most naturally focus on. For intuitives, they focus on things beyond the conscious awareness and search for possibility and meaning beyond that. Obviously this focus is unconscious--the Ni-dom doesn't wake up and think that today they'll be curious as to what sort of meaning a skeleton could have in a print (Jose Posada, if you're interested), they just naturally are, and they naturally refer what they see back to their unconscious realm of meaning, trying to find the deeper meaning in the world.

You can't just say simply that Ni does X and Ne does Y, because people aren't that simple. Ni or Ne could do both X or Y for their own reasons. The difference between the two isn't necessarily what their brains produced, but how they are produced. For Ni, as I've said, their brains naturally focus inward. So Ni might see flesh out the potential of an object by considering the object, say a tree, and its relationship to some sort of inner image, perhaps as a symbol of life and fertility, and then relate that back to a story they're writing. Who knows, maybe that's how the Ents were created; certainly they could be considered symbols of the vast ancientness and steadfastness of the earth. Ne might come to the exact same conclusion (and most people will say Tolkien had Ne in his stack), but perhaps for Ne they considered how other writers have used trees as symbols of life and fertility, calibrate that with the need for creatures who represent the solidness of nature, and then BOOM--talking oak trees. In the case of Ni, that's inward focus, but for the Ne example it's more outward (although admittedly I am an Ni-dom and therefore have an unbearable time trying to give examples for how Ne works).

Anyway, I hope this helps, and if there are Ne-doms out there who want to refine what I've said about Ne, please do so.


----------



## umop 3pisdn (Apr 4, 2014)

It's mostly unconscious, but you have a spotlight that you can shine on things, and that's basically how it enters your consciousness, through a bit of selective attention. Also some associations you can integrate in a more fully conscious way, if you refer to those same ideas a lot, but those are kind of the exceptions. Like if you have a 'pet theory' you can call on that and associated ideas pretty easily, but for the most part I would say that Ni functioning is pre-conscious.


----------



## QueenAtaraxia (Nov 10, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Both forms of intuition can do both things. Whenever I get an idea for a novel, rarely do I get a complete idea. In general I know the beginning and the end, and that's about all I know for sure about it. Everything else has to be fleshed out. Intuition works in generalities, so I would consider writers who get the whole story in one flash (a la Stephen King) the exception rather than the rule. And I even have to wonder if it's good that they do; there's no substitute for consciously working out your ideas intentionally and with purpose. If I was like King I'd be terrified that what I was putting down on paper is precisely what I wanted my message to be. Intuition may spark the fire, and it may be a big spark, but the flames must be maintained. Ni-doms can absolutely piece together their visions, but I would venture that there was an initial spark of inspiration.
> 
> So to answer your question, I'd say that of all the functions, intuition is probably the most unconscious. Jung even described it as "perception via the unconscious", and it's whole thing is that it perceives beyond what we are consciously aware of at any given moment. It's the explorer mapping out the unexplored places of the world.
> 
> ...


I think I've seen Jung refer to Ni as "peaking behind the conscious veil", or something along those lines, which I find to be the simplest definition for introverted intuition. I was pondering what I said while driving earlier, and it does make sense that Ni-doms, or Ne-doms, for that matter, would create the spark but the individual would then have to rely on their judging functions to decide what to do with them. I'm not positive if that is just with Ni-doms though, or if Ne-doms just get excited by the spark and carry on igniting the flame. I still have no idea what Ne does, although I have a brother who is undoubtedly an ENFP, who I find gets irritating after a while. His thought/speech process is also difficult to follow, but it's also fascinating.


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

The process itself is not unconscious - it's something you can tune into at any time, like any other form of perception. What is witnessed does seem to *emerge* from the unconscious, however.

It can feel like witnessing something unfolding from a hidden, mysterious part of your mind that you don't have direct access to, like ingredients floating to the top of a broth. 

By comparison, Ne is externalised - what you're perceiving seems to emerge from the world around you. Se & Si are obviously more tactile and physical, so feel more like physical sensations.


----------



## QueenAtaraxia (Nov 10, 2015)

VagrantFarce said:


> By comparison, Ne is externalised - what you're perceiving seems to emerge from the world around you.


What do you mean by this? To quote Jung on introverted intuition, "Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within."


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Not unconscious, but un_linguistic_: It doesn't form into "words in the brain" that much, if at all, on its own. I'm still aware that it's happening.

It feels like globs of dense, dark energy moving about within a liquid medium, and then sort of "snapping" into place immediately before worded/linguistic thoughts are formulated, or even in the background as thoughts are still cooking up.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

ButYouWill said:


> I think I've seen Jung refer to Ni as "peaking behind the conscious veil", or something along those lines, which I find to be the simplest definition for introverted intuition. I was pondering what I said while driving earlier, and it does make sense that Ni-doms, or Ne-doms, for that matter, would create the spark but the individual would then have to rely on their judging functions to decide what to do with them. I'm not positive if that is just with Ni-doms though, or if Ne-doms just get excited by the spark and carry on igniting the flame. I still have no idea what Ne does, although I have a brother who is undoubtedly an ENFP, who I find gets irritating after a while. His thought/speech process is also difficult to follow, but it's also fascinating.


Yes, Ne also can annoy me if it's in too big of a dose. It seems tangential to me and creates an immediate disconnect-- especially if they're also referencing themes or works that I haven't been exposed to.


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

ButYouWill said:


> What do you mean by this? To quote Jung on introverted intuition, "Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within."


I think you misread - I said Ne, not Ni.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Well you are always conscious of your ego functions. I think the word you are looking for might be "passive/perceptive/receptive" or a better alternative (meaning it comes to you, you don't make it happen) to make a distinction


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

The visions aren't unconscious, how they came to be is. You might be able to piece it together after the fact, but that is not the same as what was consciously perceived at the time.

For example:



Jung said:


> Intuitive types very often do not perceive by their eyes or by their ears, they perceive by intuition. For instance, it once happened that I had a woman patient in the morning at nine o'clock. I often smoke my pipe and have a certain smell of tobacco in the room, or a cigar. And she came and said, "But you begin earlier than nine o'clock" — earlier, I said, you call that early? — "you must have seen somebody at eight o'clock." I said, "How do you know?" There had been a man there that had come at eight o'clock already. And she said, "Oh, I just had a hunch that there must have been a gentleman with you this morning." I said, "Hum, but how do you know it was a gentleman?" And she said, "Oh well, I just had the impression, the atmosphere was just like a gentleman here." And all the time, you know, the ash tray was under her nose, and there was a half-smoked cigar! But she wouldn't notice it. The intuitive is a type that doesn't see, doesn't see the stumbling block before his feet, but he smells a rat for ten miles.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

MBTI Ni or Socionics Ni?

Socionics Ni is quite conscious when you have that function in the Ego (Their roughly equivalent MBTI types for that are INFJ, INTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ, but Socionics refers to them as IEI, ILI, LIE, EIE). That is, these types perform Ni activities consciously and with great skill. You may not be able to see it, though, because introversion. Its highly personal and, well, intuitive. The connection to reality may be unconscious with people who are not paying enough attention, but the function itself is quite visible.

Those that experience it entirely unconsciously have Ni elsewhere in their stack; those that have it but can't see it actively have it in either Weak Unconscious or Strong Unconscious blocks.

I don't really know with MBTI Ni without re-immersing myself in that framework and checking some things. From what I recall, MBTI Ni is like a paired conscious and unconscious portion, like what the gentleman above me wrote.


----------



## QueenAtaraxia (Nov 10, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> MBTI Ni or Socionics Ni?
> 
> Socionics Ni is quite conscious when you have that function in the Ego (Their roughly equivalent MBTI types for that are INFJ, INTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ, but Socionics refers to them as IEI, ILI, LIE, EIE). That is, these types perform Ni activities consciously and with great skill. You may not be able to see it, though, because introversion. Its highly personal and, well, intuitive. The connection to reality may be unconscious with people who are not paying enough attention, but the function itself is quite visible.
> 
> ...


Are Socionics and MBTI Ni two different things? I find that I agree with both, and I'm 99% positive about being INFJ


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

I feel like Socionics & MBTI are both talking about the same phenomena, just from different perspectives. They're both derived from Jung, after all.

The process of Ni is entirely conscious - it's something you're consciously choosing to pay attention to. What you perceive seems to come from some unseen part of your awareness, however - creating a sense of having witnessed something emerge from your own "unconscious".


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

ButYouWill said:


> I think I've seen Jung refer to Ni as "peaking behind the conscious veil", or something along those lines, which I find to be the simplest definition for introverted intuition. I was pondering what I said while driving earlier, and it does make sense that Ni-doms, or Ne-doms, for that matter, would create the spark but the individual would then have to rely on their judging functions to decide what to do with them. I'm not positive if that is just with Ni-doms though, or if Ne-doms just get excited by the spark and carry on igniting the flame. I still have no idea what Ne does, although I have a brother who is undoubtedly an ENFP, who I find gets irritating after a while. His thought/speech process is also difficult to follow, but it's also fascinating.


That sounds like something Jung would say, but I suspect that might apply to intuition at large. The difference between intuition and sensation isn't abstract vs. concrete (that's introversion and extraversion), but unconsicous vs. conscious. Not that the processes happen unconsciously or consciously (without an act of will or with an act of will; any sort of thinking takes will for Jung, but that's something else entirely and oh dear I'm just rambling now), but that its perceptions are of the unconscious or conscious awareness. Ugh. This is one of the major problems with typology: Jung used the same word to mean about three different things. So conscious perception is things one is readily aware of. As you read this you're aware of the words I'm writing, perhaps the feeling of the keys underneath your fingers, the chair you're sitting in, etc. That's sensation. Of course it can be more abstract than that, but since I don't have Si I doubt I'd be able to give you an off-the-cuff description of what they'd be consciously aware of. Intuition goes beyond conscious awareness, so things you might be unconsciously aware of: perhaps a smell in the air, that conversation that you've tuned out, a song on the radio, etc. It's hard to really describe what you're unconsciously aware of because, well, it's unconscious.

At its basest, the difference between Ni and Ne is going to be that Ni focuses its perceptions inward, so it focuses on the the things of which we are unconscious within the mind, and Ne is a little more concrete ('cause it's extraverted) in that it focuses outward, so perhaps those sorts of sensory things I just mentioned. From this point we can start ascribing introverted or extraverted qualities to the function. I kind of like to personify the functions when I think about this. Imagine intuition as a person, and then imagine what he/she (for some reason, introversion is male for me and extraversion is female) would be like as an introvert or an extravert. Introverted Intuition would naturally more reserved and abstract, and Extraverted Intuition would be that broad and expansive, probably rather flirty type.

I think what you're getting at in the text I quoted more falls in line with the difference between the introverted and extraverted qualities. Introverts are naturally more reserved, thus Ni is more reserved as it perceives. Rather than devour all possibilities like wildfire, it tends to take them one at a time and really suck the marrow out of each one. Compared to Ne, which just burns through all of them because of extraversion's expansive, broad, all-inclusive nature. But that doesn't mean the Ni-dom can't become overwhelmed by their own perception of possibilities (I can personally attest to this) and that the Ne-com can't focus on one thing at a time. That's going to depend. But the approach to something, say a sudden flash of possibility, will be different. Ni will probably feel overwhelmed and find some way of structuring his perceptions, whereas Ne will probably ride the wave, so to speak. Ni naturally wants to explore everything to its fullest capacity (which is why it takes me forever to go anywhere in Dark Souls), and for Ne, the pursuit of possibility is almost the goal in of itself (which is why they probably don't feel the need to explore every crevice they come across in Dark Souls).

Hm. Maybe I should go play some Dark Souls. I haven't picked that up in a while.


----------



## QueenAtaraxia (Nov 10, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Hm. Maybe I should go play some Dark Souls. I haven't picked that up in a while.


One thing that I did on my family was a "taste-test" to try and see if there was a difference between how Se and Si influences perception of taste. I gave all of my family members a piece of food and had them tell me what affected them more, the taste of the food or their bodily sensations. My sister, who I suspect is an ESFJ, said that she felt her teeth tingle when she ate the food. Whereas my mom, ENFJ, said that she focused on the taste of the food. I thought it was pretty interesting.

I think conscious means awareness, so what you are aware of in your environment. Now, this doesn't mean sight, taste, or smell, it's how the information is processed. If you walk up to me and ask me what color something is, I'll say the color but it's not something that I focus on intently (Se). An Si/Ne user will look at the object and all sorts of things will pop into their minds such as the fabric, texture, ideas, etc. 

In my opinion:
Si is an abstraction of consciousness, Se is aware of consciousness, Ni is an abstraction of the unconscious, and Ne is awareness of the unconscious.

Now, you can't go around telling people these definitions of the terms because it's really not "normal" people language and can be subject to interpretation, which is what makes Jung so confusing for most people to read.

My mind works in images, almost like a cloak of film tape. If I pass by something that reminds me of a time when something happened, my mind abstracts from that object based on what is unconscious. I overlook the actual state of the object in my perception and look behind it to what is unconsciously there, and in the last resort, what other people who were there might have remembered. In turn, this may be why I have excellent memory based on what actually happened (Se). Si would pass by something and remember what happened to them and their sensations, and feel that same sensation. Because of this repetitive cycle of sensation, it's really hard for them to live in the moment and be aware of what is surrounding them. Very similar to Ni, but in a much more personalized sensational manner.

I don't know where this was going but I wanted to unload my mind-baggage.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

ButYouWill said:


> Are Socionics and MBTI Ni two different things? I find that I agree with both, and I'm 99% positive about being INFJ


Yes, they are. It has been my experience that when you test out people by dichotomy, roughly half of the IEIs (Socionics Ni-Fe type) test as MBTI INFJ, and the other half test as INFP. The same thing happens to the EII (The Socionics Fi-Ne type). So not at all unusual for you to identify with both.

The reason they are different is because they are both derived from Jung, but went in different directions. This is more noticeable with Si and Se between the two systems, as Si us about recognition of beauty and the importance of the environment to the self so things like health and so forth. Se is about power, influence, space, boundary setting, forcefulness, and so forth. The definitions are different, and Socionics orders them entirely differently which results in the capacity of types to be one type in the dichotomy system and another in Socionics.

Socionics Ni information:

"Introverted Intuition Ni, temporal intuition, white intuition v

“I see time as it affects all things. I sense the occurrence of distant events …”

Ni is generally associated with the ability to perceive how events change over time and throughout history. These types sense the unfolding processes in time as well as possessing deeply vivid mental imagery and visions. Ni perceives intangible relationships between objects and processes. Ni types are usually focused into the future or past and have little presence in the “present moment.” Types with favored Ni are often able to forecast impending danger and have an intuitive knowledge of events that are occurring presently in a separate location from where they presently are. To access their special insights these types gather current information, and evaluate trends and commonalities from past events and seem to transversely exist on the axis of time both backwards and forwards. These types often spend a great deal of time in their own fantasies, which they often keep very private and not share in detail with most others. Ni types inner worlds are often full of intricate plots and characters, and their minds are an oasis of sorts where knowledge is treated as a toy for them to play within their mental wanderings."
Source: IM Elements | iSocion Network

"Introverted Intuition
THEMES SUB-THEMES
time, processes, speed - crises
- sense of time
- a person's influence on time, and time's influence on a person
interconnections; interdependence of objects, events, and processes foresight or anticipation (through a sense of processes) 
the nonmaterial part of the world within us - internal processes - adverbs denoting state of mind
memory - associations or connotations, the "music" of the inner world (of a person or any object, figuratively speaking)
uncertainty - perceiving imagery

SPEECH PECULIARITIES
water-related metaphors and expressions
birth and death imagery; mirror and reflection themes; vocabulary that demonstrates uncertainty that can't be reduced to a rational description
associations and figures of speech not united by a central concept (as in Ne), but based on free association
metonymy and synecdoche; metamorphosis; symbolism, catachresis; oxymoron; synesthesia

DOMINANT FIELDS OF ACTIVITY AND TOPICS OF CONVERSATION
discussing processes;"the history of the issue"; "the philosophy of the situation"
discussing imagery, associations, and recollections
foresight or anticipation
interconnectedness of objects and processes
the topic of changes
the topic of style"
Source: Socionics - the16types.info - Semantics and Vocabulary of Information Elements


----------



## QueenAtaraxia (Nov 10, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yes, they are. It has been my experience that when you test out people by dichotomy, roughly half of the IEIs (Socionics Ni-Fe type) test as MBTI INFJ, and the other half test as INFP. The same thing happens to the EII (The Socionics Fi-Ne type). So not at all unusual for you to identify with both.
> 
> The reason they are different is because they are both derived from Jung, but went in different directions. This is more noticeable with Si and Se between the two systems, as Si us about recognition of beauty and the importance of the environment to the self so things like health and so forth. Se is about power, influence, space, boundary setting, forcefulness, and so forth. The definitions are different, and Socionics orders them entirely differently which results in the capacity of types to be one type in the dichotomy system and another in Socionics.
> [/url]


Thanks for the link! I'm leaning on INFJ, just by reading Jung's Psychological Types. Still trying to gain 100% certainty but I haven't gotten there yet -__-


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

ButYouWill said:


> Thanks for the link! I'm leaning on INFJ, just by reading Jung's Psychological Types. Still trying to gain 100% certainty but I haven't gotten there yet -__-


If you make a type me thread in Socionics "What's my Socionics type" subforum, I will be glad to help you out. Tag me, Entropic, Myst91, Night Huntress, and anyone else you see actively responding in that subforum. Someone can help you out! Choose one of the questionnaires from that subforum's stickies to fill out, too, if you want it to be a smooth process that people can easily chime in on.

I prefer the 80q questionnaire, personally, because typing accurately requires a lot of information. The 40q is my second choice. I find the 21q to be too little to work with, personally.

For MBTI, I can help any active type thread you have, but I must confess I find MBTI function typing distasteful for a variety of reasons, and prefer to type by dichotomy in that system (which is how the actual MBTI is scored, btw).


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

ButYouWill said:


> One thing that I did on my family was a "taste-test" to try and see if there was a difference between how Se and Si influences perception of taste. I gave all of my family members a piece of food and had them tell me what affected them more, the taste of the food or their bodily sensations. My sister, who I suspect is an ESFJ, said that she felt her teeth tingle when she ate the food. Whereas my mom, ENFJ, said that she focused on the taste of the food. I thought it was pretty interesting.
> 
> I think conscious means awareness, so what you are aware of in your environment. Now, this doesn't mean sight, taste, or smell, it's how the information is processed. If you walk up to me and ask me what color something is, I'll say the color but it's not something that I focus on intently (Se). An Si/Ne user will look at the object and all sorts of things will pop into their minds such as the fabric, texture, ideas, etc.
> 
> ...


Your definitions, Si is abstraction of consciousness and so on, is what I was trying to get at, but you put it more concisely. Mind if I steal those? 

As far as the taste test, I think that could be a good way of determining the Se and Si thing like you say, although I'd be interested to read your questions you posed just to try and see if there was any bias in the questions, but I trust that you dealt with that well.

Mind working in images...boy howdy. So a while back I correlated that to Ni, but consider this me revising that statement. I've since come to question the type of some of those I interviewed on the matter, so I have no good basis for thinking that at the moment. _However_, I suspect that this sort of thinking is in fact related to intuition. One of people who I asked about the images thing, an ESxP (no doubt in my mind), said that he didn't even visualize when he read, and he loves reading. At first this seems unusual, but I suspect that if you're a strong Se-dom like he is, you're hyper-focused on the words on the page over what the words release within. Whereas intuition (especially introverted intuition) is primarily concerned with what those words release within. Here's an example: when I was younger I used to get frustrated because my mind would wander while I read--the very images that I watched would begin to take on their own life and do something that wasn't written on the page. I learned fairly quickly to deal with this, but for a while there I could sometimes stop on a paragraph and not read any farther because what I was watching kept repeating in my head. There was on book I read where a character swung across a pit from a beam overhead, and instead of watching him land I watched him flip around and around on the beam for a good while before I could actually force him to land in my mind. If we're already dealing with intuition being a factor in the perception of those images, then I suspect that introverted intuition, where the subjective factor is of primary importance, would be more inclined towards such flights of fancy, and extraverted intuition, where the subjective factor is repressed, would not.

Darn. Now I'm not sure where I was going with this, either. Just adding my baggage to the carousel.


----------



## Iconclast (Apr 12, 2016)

ButYouWill said:


> Is introverted intuition really that unconscious? How come I see people posting about how they piece together their visions but Jung says that these visions are largely unconscious? Wouldn't extraverted intuition notice potential in an object and try to flesh it out from there, whereas introverted intuition is just watching the picture form and fade, not really trying to create something new with it?


Being an introvert sucks. Question, can an introvert go from being introverted to being extroverted?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

VagrantFarce said:


> The process itself is not unconscious - it's something you can tune into at any time, like any other form of perception. What is witnessed does seem to *emerge* from the unconscious, however.
> 
> It can feel like witnessing something unfolding from a hidden, mysterious part of your mind that you don't have direct access to, like ingredients floating to the top of a broth.
> 
> By comparison, Ne is externalised - what you're perceiving seems to emerge from the world around you. Se & Si are obviously more tactile and physical, so feel more like physical sensations.


I agree, I don't agree with the above posters that Ni is in itself unconscious like that. The way I've come to see it, is that Ni is a tool that allows you to delve or connect to the collective unconsciousness and thus being able to grasp the archetypes that are found within. Most of all, what Jung emphasized when it came to Ni is the focus on exploring the visions that emerge from the unconsciousness. 

Ni is therefore not the unconscious content in itself, but it is the tool that allows us to access or release this content found within, like a key that can unlock the hidden door and just like the easel and brush being the tools of the painter to explore an image on a canvas, Ni does the same but with unconscious content. It helps to paint the images that arise from within but if there is no image to see, Ni cannot generate it either. It's akin to opening a box but there is no content inside the box. 

Another thing about Ni is that it perceives how events tie together and lead to one aspect to another, like space and time. Just like Ne it can make associative leaps of how unrelated phenomena are related, Ni sees how one phenomenon transforms into another phenomenon. 

Ni is most definitely not analytical though.


----------



## QueenAtaraxia (Nov 10, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Your definitions, Si is abstraction of consciousness and so on, is what I was trying to get at, but you put it more concisely. Mind if I steal those?


Not at all! Go right ahead.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> As far as the taste test, I think that could be a good way of determining the Se and Si thing like you say, although I'd be interested to read your questions you posed just to try and see if there was any bias in the questions, but I trust that you dealt with that well.


I just asked, "Before you eat this, pay attention to what you pay attention to first." *human takes bite of food* "Okay, what did you taste or feel?"

- ISFJ: "My body was overtaken by the food"

- ISTP: "The food tasted like it usually does"


I can't even read that paragraph without picturing what happened to you, even if it wasn't exactly how you described it. I read the first sentence and my mind took off from there.

For me, it is very hard to read something without trying to piece the pages together myself. Even when I'm listening to a song, if it doesn't evoke some image in my head then it is very hard for me to truly like the song. Even if it isn't a play-by-play movie, but rather a symbol of some kind, then it's amazing. 

For example, I was listening to the song "Mein" - Deftones, and all I could picture was a pulsating ball with 
silver strings wrapped around it loosely as the guitar was playing. Then when the vocals came in I pictured a white hole with black space going in towards it and immediately splashing out to create a wave. From there it flipped between strange images and a sort of movie that went along with the lyrics. Like, this happens when I'm driving and I know that I'm not consciously paying attention to what I'm physically doing but rather what is occurring in my personal movie theatre.

So there you go, I spilled out my psyche for you. 

EDIT: Sorry, I shouldn't say that I dislike things because they don't provoke images. It's more that I don't get as excited if there is no portrait being painted.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I agree, I don't agree with the above posters that Ni is in itself unconscious like that. The way I've come to see it, is that Ni is a tool that allows you to delve or connect to the collective unconsciousness and thus being able to grasp the archetypes that are found within. Most of all, what Jung emphasized when it came to Ni is the focus on exploring the visions that emerge from the unconsciousness.
> 
> Ni is therefore not the unconscious content in itself, but it is the tool that allows us to access or release this content found within, like a key that can unlock the hidden door and just like the easel and brush being the tools of the painter to explore an image on a canvas, Ni does the same but with unconscious content. It helps to paint the images that arise from within but if there is no image to see, Ni cannot generate it either. It's akin to opening a box but there is no content inside the box.
> 
> ...


I think Ni accesses "feeling tones":
Sub-cognitive, sub-linguistic, sub-intellectual, "positive"/"neutral"/"negative" impulses that result from sensations but are divorced from those sensations through a layer of "gut feeling", possibly in the enteric nervous system.

Si also accesses these feeling tones, but draws from mental images about what has already happened, while Ni draws from mental "fractals" of what could manifest at any moment (archetypes, Platonic "forms").

Si will pick out the actual tone (positive= comfortable, healthy, assuaging; negative= uncomfortable, unhealthy, aversive) and connect it to something stored likely in muscle memory and sense memory and establish a sense of familiarity.

Ni will pick out the "primordial tone" (positive= likely to mitigate cognitive dissonance, either en masse or personally; negative= likely to detract from the salient whole; neutral= somehow connected but unlikely to generate strong reactions) and connect it to something that Jung would have considered the "collective unconscious", and sort of compile very instantaneously, any archetype or archetype-cluster that is relevant to the salient whole or of relevant focus to prevent fragmentation of the salient whole.

　
If this is happening unconsciously, they are likely Ni-Demonstrative ("Ne"-auxiliary), not Ni-Leading/"dominant".

I literally can feel the difference in my neurons firing switching between linguistic/semiotic thoughtforms of my intellect (rational functions actually generating judgments or rationalizations) and intuitive synthesis and sub-linguistic "churnings".

If someone can't at least notice that this is happening in real time, I doubt they're an IxNJ. We're not always self-aware, but it happens so freaking much that anyone studying typology should be able to intuitively hone in upon to a degree where it is quite literally "gut-feeling-negative" to read about people typing as NJ who say it all happens without them knowing where it comes from.

If I think hard enough, and invoke maybe some Fi and Si, I can easily trace my intuitions back to the initial moments I've deriving these feelings from, and even remember instances in my past in which these archetypes were being consciously processed in tandem with my Fe and Ti for instance.

Having Ti, especially, so for INFJs, it should be /painfully frigging obvious/ because Ti will keep it impersonal, leaving room for impersonal contemplations about the nature and source of the Ni function itself.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Kerik_S said:


> I think Ni accesses "feeling tones":
> Sub-cognitive, sub-linguistic, sub-intellectual, "positive"/"neutral"/"negative" impulses that result from sensations but are divorced from those sensations through a layer of "gut feeling", possibly in the enteric nervous system.
> 
> Si also accesses these feeling tones, but draws from mental images about what has already happened, while Ni draws from mental "fractals" of what could manifest at any moment (archetypes, Platonic "forms").
> ...


Finally someone put some words to it. Yes, exactly. You can just feel how things fit in, but it is not at all unconscious. It's part of the perceptive process, fit in with it. At the moment you see the thing, you see the connections of the thing as part of the thing. All things are one, part of the same overall reality, and can be extrapolated from. If you need to chase it back to its source, you can do so, and the things are understood in relation to the other functions you use. Ni in INTJ is quite different from INFJ because of the difference in its use, for just this reason.



Kerik_S said:


> If someone can't at least notice that this is happening in real time, I doubt they're an IxNJ. We're not always self-aware, but it happens so freaking much that anyone studying typology should be able to intuitively hone in upon to a degree where it is quite literally "gut-feeling-negative" to read about people typing as NJ who say it all happens without them knowing where it comes from.
> 
> If I think hard enough, and invoke maybe some Fi and Si, I can easily trace my intuitions back to the initial moments I've deriving these feelings from, and even remember instances in my past in which these archetypes were being consciously processed in tandem with my Fe and Ti for instance.


Kinda like when you say "I remember when I came to this conclusion, it went down like this while that was going on"?


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Finally someone put some words to it. Yes, exactly. You can just feel how things fit in, but it is not at all unconscious. It's part of the perceptive process, fit in with it. At the moment you see the thing, you see the connections of the thing as part of the thing. All things are one, part of the same overall reality, and can be extrapolated from. If you need to chase it back to its source, you can do so, and the things are understood in relation to the other functions you use. Ni in INTJ is quite different from INFJ because of the difference in its use, for just this reason.


The moment is of Ni is exactly the same. It isn't really "markedly INTJ" or "markedly INFJ" until other functions grab the information.

However, INFJs will develop an affinity for information that feeds into Ni-Fe and Ni-Ti "schemas", and INTJs will develop an affinity for information that can be more readily utilized in Ni-Te and Ni-Fi.





Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Kinda like when you say "I remember when I came to this conclusion, it went down like this while that was going on"?


If you had to. I think that would be using Si and Fi, which would spark some kind of Se by extension if you needed to remember the events that triggered it, as well.

Si tracks itself automatically, which explains why Si is past-oriented. Conscious Ni will always have conscious Si, so they can work off of each other if accessing the Si-storehouse is important to you at any given moment.

Usually, I access the Si and Se-by-extension during arguments to reference back to someone "Remember when I said [x,y,z]? That was me implying that I totally saw this coming. And it did. Obviously, my inferences aren't as unrealistic and paranoid as you've been saying!" or something like that.

Ni doesn't need to track to the past to feel a sense of conviction in its own syntheses.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kerik_S said:


> I think Ni accesses "feeling tones":
> Sub-cognitive, sub-linguistic, sub-intellectual, "positive"/"neutral"/"negative" impulses that result from sensations but are divorced from those sensations through a layer of "gut feeling", possibly in the enteric nervous system.
> 
> Si also accesses these feeling tones, but draws from mental images about what has already happened, while Ni draws from mental "fractals" of what could manifest at any moment (archetypes, Platonic "forms").
> ...


I think your description is very slanted towards INFJ with Fe, lol. I can't really relate much to the way you use feeling tones. I mean, I get what you're trying to say, but I do think it's very Fe slanted. The difference, as I experience it, is that Ni feels more ethereal, otherwordly and detached from the physical. It accesses inner realities that cannot be perceived by the naked eye and it peers into its essence and how something is shaped in that very moment and how that moment is connected to a much larger context of what were and what will be.

I guess for me, I see identities or inner natures, and I understand their development over time. Feelings don't necessarily play much of a role to me, here. I usually experience it as quite detached and objective in a way. There's a factual component of "I know that's gonna happen" but more as a fact.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I think your description is very slanted towards INFJ with Fe, lol. I can't really relate much to the way you use feeling tones. I mean, I get what you're trying to say, but I do think it's very Fe slanted. The difference, as I experience it, is that Ni feels more ethereal, otherwordly and detached from the physical. It accesses inner realities that cannot be perceived by the naked eye and it peers into its essence and how something is shaped in that very moment and how that moment is connected to a much larger context of what were and what will be.
> 
> I guess for me, I see identities or inner natures, and I understand their development over time. Feelings don't necessarily play much of a role to me, here. I usually experience it as quite detached and objective in a way. There's a factual component of "I know that's gonna happen" but more as a fact.


The reason I mentioned archetypes is because I believe that Ni-Te (and Ni-Ti processing in INFJs) will likely access the archetypes that are impersonal, as well as feeling tones that I labeled as "neutral".

Ni-Fe (and Ni-Fi in INTJs) will be more likely to access archetypes that are relevant to people and emotive forces, as well as feeling tones that I labeled as "positive" or "negative".

Ni-Te going with "neutral" tones in the synthesis process preserves the focus on logic.

Ultimately, even positive and negative feeling tones are compiled in an "ethereal" manner because the actual "Ni moment"-- even in INFJs-- is detached from the actual visceral feeling (the emotional charge) until Demonstrative Fi or Creative Fe gets its hands on it.

　
The difference then will be that INFJs' "introverted worlds" (Ni-Ti loops, especially) are going to pick the neutral and the impersonal.
While, conversely, in INTJs' their "extroverted worlds" are going to pick the neutral and the impersonal.

Because our "loops" will cause us to select different archetypes than our egoic processing (Lead+Creative), we'll identify more with-- as INFJs-- a conception of Ni that is postive/negative "slanted" despite the fact that Ni works in a very ethereal way with our Ni-Ti loops, simply because Fe is stronger than Ti.

I seriously doubt INTJs remain completely "ethereal" in their Ni synthesis when they're looping. I'm sure it gets tumultuous and value-laden, and even aversive (negative) or seductive (positive) if the loop goes into that direction.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Entropic said:


> Another thing about Ni is that it perceives how events tie together and lead to one aspect to another, like space and time. Just like Ne it can make associative leaps of how unrelated phenomena are related.


So what is the difference between the Ni and Ne leaps of association? I assume both need objective material to work with. Ni can't just figure out things that are not there, right?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Felipe said:


> So what is the difference between the Ni and Ne leaps of association? I assume both need objective material to work with. Ni can't just figure out things that are not there, right?


Ne sees connections or commonalities. Typical of Ne is to seek to explore how one thing is related to another thing e.g. stuff like this. From a specific vantage point, everything can be linked to one another, that there is an interconnectedness between events and phenomena. Seeing what they all have in common is a property of Ne. Ni, on the other hand, is about seeing development and trends, how things will unfold. It understands change. This is why Nardi and Berens attribute metamorphosis as an aspect of Ni, because it understands how the inner essence of a thing changes over time.

So Ne is about patterns and piecing things together into a holistic or bigger picture by seeing how things share a common attribute. Ni understands bigger picture too, but it's much more zoomed out like the satellite in space looking down on earth and seeing how earth is a part of the larger solar system. Ne sees how the earth is a planet just like Mars even though Mars is also a very different kind of object compared to earth but it's less interested to see how Mars and earth as objects connect to smaller and greater objects around them, that they are a part of another essence. Ne sees each essence of a thing as separate (extroverted). So while Ne understands that earth is a part of the Milky Way, it's not so interested in exploring how it is so.


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

ButYouWill said:


> Wouldn't extraverted intuition notice potential in an object and try to flesh it out from there, whereas introverted intuition is just watching the picture form and fade, not really trying to create something new with it?


Ne have the tendency for interpreting the ambiguous aspect of nature to relate with the person's own tangible expectations. Ne dominants are obsessed with catching a certain shade of fade, achieving satisfaction by seizing that state/moment with interaction and moving on for something completely new/different. They experience life as bouncing between short sequences of variable interests. That's why they are disturbingly smart and goal oriented.






In the other hand, Ni dominants are hypnotic and selfless towards life. We are obsessed with everything as a whole, as a never-ending continuum without expecting a practical function. Indeed some things are striking as genuinely and make sense in mysterious ways but their significance is beyond making wine when life gives you grapes.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Iconclast said:


> Being an introvert sucks. Question, can an introvert go from being introverted to being extroverted?


Depends on which models of the psyche you subscribe to. Freud and Jung, probably not. Here's an article that refutes both of those positions: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201604/can-introvert-ever-change

Of course, the Jungian argument is that introversion is deeper than what the article talks about, but on a basic level, yes, you can learn to be more outgoing to talkative, but it will take work to go against your natural predilections.

You shouldn't be unhappy with yourself, but I think you'll save yourself a lot of trouble and headaches by learning to accept yourself as you are rather than trying to change. Yes, Western civilization values extraverts over introverts, but I think it's much better to stick to your guns than to find yourself in situations where you consistently stress yourself out all for the sake of conforming. In the end, I think that whatever weariness over your introversion will pass, both as this situation passes and as you grow older. Be a little hopeful.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

ButYouWill said:


> Not at all! Go right ahead.


Haha, thanks.



ButYouWill said:


> I just asked, "Before you eat this, pay attention to what you pay attention to first." *human takes bite of food* "Okay, what did you taste or feel?"
> 
> - ISFJ: "My body was overtaken by the food"
> 
> - ISTP: "The food tasted like it usually does"


Looks good to me. Do you have any ESxPs or ESxJs on which to test this? I'd be interested in those results.



ButYouWill said:


> I can't even read that paragraph without picturing what happened to you, even if it wasn't exactly how you described it. I read the first sentence and my mind took off from there.
> 
> For me, it is very hard to read something without trying to piece the pages together myself. Even when I'm listening to a song, if it doesn't evoke some image in my head then it is very hard for me to truly like the song. Even if it isn't a play-by-play movie, but rather a symbol of some kind, then it's amazing.
> 
> ...


Oh, I totally feel you here. I'm just not sure if this behavior is Ni-related or not. It seems like it should be, and that fascination with the images over reality would be more Ni.

Here's a thought: do you tend to be more interested in the possibilities of the image itself rather than just observing?


----------



## QueenAtaraxia (Nov 10, 2015)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Here's a thought: do you tend to be more interested in the possibilities of the image itself rather than just observing?


I draw some kind of conclusion from it if I can, like some lyrics or separate meaning. Otherwise I just go about my day and see what else strikes my fancy. Sometimes things that occur throughout time will connect to the image but I don't force it.


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Ne sees connections or commonalities. Typical of Ne is to seek to explore how one thing is related to another thing e.g. stuff like this. From a specific vantage point, everything can be linked to one another, that there is an interconnectedness between events and phenomena. Seeing what they all have in common is a property of Ne. Ni, on the other hand, is about seeing development and trends, how things will unfold. It understands change. This is why Nardi and Berens attribute metamorphosis as an aspect of Ni, because it understands how the inner essence of a thing changes over time.
> 
> So Ne is about patterns and piecing things together into a holistic or bigger picture by seeing how things share a common attribute. Ni understands bigger picture too, but it's much more zoomed out like the satellite in space looking down on earth and seeing how earth is a part of the larger solar system. Ne sees how the earth is a planet just like Mars even though Mars is also a very different kind of object compared to earth but it's less interested to see how Mars and earth as objects connect to smaller and greater objects around them, that they are a part of another essence. Ne sees each essence of a thing as separate (extroverted). So while Ne understands that earth is a part of the Milky Way, it's not so interested in exploring how it is so.


The main pivot point between the two of these is "epistemology" (Ne) vs "ontology" (Ni).


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

ButYouWill said:


> I draw some kind of conclusion from it if I can, like some lyrics or separate meaning. Otherwise I just go about my day and see what else strikes my fancy. Sometimes things that occur throughout time will connect to the image but I don't force it.


This strikes me as Ne, tbph. If you have Ne as your auxiliary, in Socionics you will have Ni as your Demonstrative and have those "aha!" moments they talk about.

I don't believe that INxJs have "aha!" moments because it's not surprising to a Ni-dominant to see these intuitions form and change over time.

Ne doesn't tend to have a focus on the formation, growth, and change of the intuitions themselves because it's extroverted and won't be self-referential like that.

That would leave only Ti-Ne for you (INTP) or Fi-Ne (INFP) and your thing about finding the meaning in lyrics sounds like Fi to me.


----------



## QueenAtaraxia (Nov 10, 2015)

Kerik_S said:


> This strikes me as Ne, tbph. If you have Ne as your auxiliary, in Socionics you will have Ni as your Demonstrative and have those "aha!" moments they talk about.
> 
> I don't believe that INxJs have "aha!" moments because it's not surprising to a Ni-dominant to see these intuitions form and change over time.
> 
> ...


Unless you are wrong altogether and misunderstanding me, which wouldn't surprise me as my opinions on things, including myself and what I say, is everchanging. I'll take your word for it and see where it takes me though


----------



## Kerik_S (Aug 26, 2015)

ButYouWill said:


> which wouldn't surprise me as my opinions on things, including myself and what I say, is everchanging.


Even that sounds like Ne to me. Unless you're maybe 16 years old or something, your ideas about yourself or at least how you frame them in words (especially writing) would be much different if you were Ni, unless-- again-- you're like 16 or something.

It's not to say it's better or worse, just markedly different.

You would be more certain and certainly less variable about these particular subjects (meta-cognition especially) if you're an adult Ni-dominant


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

ButYouWill said:


> Is introverted intuition really that unconscious? How come I see people posting about how they piece together their visions but Jung says that these visions are largely unconscious? Wouldn't extraverted intuition notice potential in an object and try to flesh it out from there, whereas introverted intuition is just watching the picture form and fade, not really trying to create something new with it?


Well this could be a matter of language. Ni, by definition is a cognitive function and therefore would be conscious. I would think an Ne user, who is conscious of looking at the outside world, could have unconscious intuition. It would stay unconscious because it would be overridden by dominant Si, Ti or Fi. If their Si, Ti or Fi would lighten up a bit, this could release Ni into awareness. Then it would become conscious at the expense of this Si, Ti or Fi. 

Did I say, "Ne"? An Ne user could drop their lookout and ponder looking in. That might be a violation of their motives, but it would make an unconscious force conscious. Yes introverted intuition wouldn't last long in an Ne user. 

Since I'm a presumed Ne user (INTP), rereading the above sounds dogmatic. I'm willing to forget the whole thing.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

My perception is the image processed from my P CF, I am not conscious of my process, its cause, motive or what is behind it.
What comes out of my P CF is therefore only awareness of the output of certain CF.

Conclusion: we have no idea who we are or who the Self is behind the awareness.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Kerik_S said:


> The main pivot point between the two of these is "epistemology" (Ne) vs "ontology" (Ni).


That was very interesting to me. An ENFp friend of mine was all like "I prefer Epistomology!!!!".


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

ButYouWill said:


> I draw some kind of conclusion from it if I can, like some lyrics or separate meaning. Otherwise I just go about my day and see what else strikes my fancy. Sometimes things that occur throughout time will connect to the image but I don't force it.


Hm. Fits with the irrational component of Ni--just perceiving, never judging. I'm starting to think the images might be more in line with Ni than I realized. At least, dealing with them in this way. I suspect that the content of the images also has a lot to do with whether it's Ni or another function.


----------

