# Curious: Can someone please explain ni in layman's terms?



## BooksandButterflies (Jul 26, 2012)

*My si and ni are pretty close. I just wondered if someone could better explain ni for me? Thanks!*:kitteh:


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Ni is unconsciously recognising underlying patterns when perceiving information and placing importance on them, above the sensory information being perceived


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

PinkPizazz said:


> *My si and ni are pretty close. I just wondered if someone could better explain ni for me? Thanks!*:kitteh:


As simple as I can to explain Si and Ni is: Sensing is pointed inward. Intuition is pointed inward...not much explaining there but simple it is. Now a visual aide to go with this.

If you was to ask Si to paint or imagine a boat you could get this
http://img.posterlounge.de/images/w...-beach-at-saintes-maries-de-la-mer-148011.jpg

If you ask Ni you could get this
http://www.sea-way.org/blog/kush5.jpg

or this
http://www.daydaypaint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Surreal-Paintings-02.jpg


----------



## BooksandButterflies (Jul 26, 2012)

myjazz said:


> As simple as I can to explain Si and Ni is: Sensing is pointed inward. Intuition is pointed inward...not much explaining there but simple it is. Now a visual aide to go with this.
> 
> If you was to ask Si to paint or imagine a boat you could get this
> http://img.posterlounge.de/images/w...-beach-at-saintes-maries-de-la-mer-148011.jpg
> ...


*I really want that first Ni boat!*:laughing:


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

PinkPizazz said:


> *I really want that first Ni boat!*:laughing:


You can use mine if you want, watch out for the fireflies though the butterflies get distracted then your stuck 


Salvador Dali was an amazing artist...


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Neverontime said:


> Ni is unconsciously recognising underlying patterns when perceiving information and placing importance on them, above the sensory information being perceived


I had the same question as the OP. Do you have any examples of this?


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

A concrete example of Ni is human language. Language uses sounds, syllables tones, pronunciations and vocal inflections to convey information to another person such that information can be shared. Think of Ni as constructing that language and what specific characters you use within a language to convey meaning. This is also found within languages as those who are multi-lingual (myself included) can attest that thinking in different languages gives you a different pattern of thinking. The English language for example is very Te is nature is meant to express more objective, rational thought. This has indicated that the esoteric meanings that are meant to be conveyed by those who had created the original language has focused on the concrete, scientific, yet detached facts. Italian, and other romance languages have more passion that is conveyed within the intended meaning of the words, and the way that the language flows. It expresses passions above cold hard logic like English. Several Chinese dialects are constructed to give meaning to the order of ones life as it unfolds. 

Think of the broader picture behind the implication of how humans use language, its really all about symbolic interactions which is what Ni is. Ni is a very esoteric function and I'm not sure if I have understood it myself. Those with Ni may not fully be able to come to grasp the full essence of their function to tell us what it is in details that can be generally understood.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

SharkT00th said:


> A concrete example of Ni is human language. Language uses sounds, syllables tones, pronunciations and vocal inflections to convey information to another person such that information can be shared. Think of Ni as constructing that language and what specific characters you use within a language to convey meaning. This is also found within languages as those who are multi-lingual (myself included) can attest that thinking in different languages gives you a different pattern of thinking. The English language for example is very Te is nature is meant to express more objective, rational thought. This has indicated that the esoteric meanings that are meant to be conveyed by those who had created the original language has focused on the concrete, scientific, yet detached facts. Italian, and other romance languages have more passion that is conveyed within the intended meaning of the words, and the way that the language flows. It expresses passions above cold hard logic like English. Several Chinese dialects are constructed to give meaning to the order of ones life as it unfolds.
> 
> Think of the broader picture behind the implication of how humans use language, its really all about symbolic interactions which is what Ni is. Ni is a very esoteric function and I'm not sure if I have understood it myself. Those with Ni may not fully be able to come to grasp the full essence of their function to tell us what it is in details that can be generally understood.


Leave it to Ni to take the the objective, rational thought of language and and spin it into a cyclone of content within content.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

PinkPizazz said:


> *My si and ni are pretty close. I just wondered if someone could better explain ni for me? Thanks!*:kitteh:


Introverted iNtuiting: Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data; realizing “what will be”; conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations; getting an image of profound meaning or far-reaching symbols. Envisioning yourself in an outfit or maybe envisioning yourself being a certain way.

Cognitive Processes


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I had the same question as the OP. Do you have any examples of this?


Not exactly, but I'll try and explain. Intuition unconsciously adds something to the sensory impressions being perceived in order to make sense of them. For example, motives behind other people's actions, since motives are rarely shared along with actions, the only way we can hope to accurately predict them is by recognising patterns involved with people's actions and motives. Ne recognises patterns that have been objectively given by experience, Ni recognises patterns that aren't objectively given. 

Obviously, everyone can predict motives behind actions, what determines which perceiving function we prefer is what information we trust and focus on the most. Sensors won't intuitively add information if what's coming in through the five senses already makes sense to them. Intuitives are still likely to trust what comes to them unconsciously, even if the sensory impression already makes sense as it is.


----------



## Paradigm (Feb 16, 2010)

The first time I really understood Ni was when reading this page:
Introverted Intuition

For me, Ni is a bit quieter than they describe, though. It gives me impressions but doesn't really give me words.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

PinkPizazz said:


> *My si and ni are pretty close. I just wondered if someone could better explain ni for me? Thanks!*:kitteh:


I am curious as to how you see Ni or SI?


And who flips the bill when they go out?


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

SharkT00th said:


> The English language for example is very Te is nature is meant to express more objective, rational thought.


I never thought of that before, but it's probably why I prefer English over my native tongue, which I've always found is more of a "workhorse" of a language in that it has a very limited vocabulary, tends to be very general in nature and fails to let me express what I want to express.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Paradigm said:


> The first time I really understood Ni was when reading this page:
> Introverted Intuition
> 
> For me, Ni is a bit quieter than they describe, though. It gives me impressions but doesn't really give me words.


For me, a lot of realizations or thoughts that I have cannot be translated into words properly without having fragments of the meaning taken out of it. To describe it in the form of words alone would be quite inaccurate. 

I think the simplest way I could phrase Ni is finding great meaning and significance in places or things that are usually overlooked. And often times these meanings are connected in some way shape or form, and are applicable to many seemingly unrelated realms of both objective and subjective reality.


----------



## Ashneversleeps (May 28, 2011)

Laymen's terms eh... it's like seeing external objects (or people) merely as the cover of a book, while being able to read* the pages beneath which impart the information about its composition, motivations, larger contexts etc.

* maybe receiving impressions is more accurate... it can be a picture book with transparent pages.


----------



## Peripatetic (Jul 17, 2012)

Here's the keys2cognition definition: introverted Intuiting (Ni) Receive "ah-ha" insights and realizations. Persue a greater level of awareness to transform who you are and how you think.
I agree mostly with what's been said, but but I would add, Ni (I think) has X-ray vision. Much like Plato's allegory of the cave, Ni looks past the appearance of things to the 'essence' of it. 

The example already stated is good, motivations. Whenever I hear a persons reason for the 'why' of their action, I usually instantly and unconsciously look past that to find the lizard brain instinct at work. I tend to see beliefs and arguments as results of MBTI or personal experiences rather than unique derivations of free thought.

I don't know if any of that is Ni or just me.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

The one description that stuck is the perceptual aspect of Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia without so much the reasoning part. i.e. the perception of the assumptions (Ni) that could have led to the visible observations (Se). A developed judging aux function would then account for the rapid "cutting" of the web of assumptions that led to a "reasonable" abduction.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ashcancowgirl said:


> Laymen's terms eh... it's like seeing external objects (or people) merely as the cover of a book, while being able to read* the pages beneath which impart the information about its composition, motivations, larger contexts etc.
> 
> * maybe receiving impressions is more accurate... it can be a picture book with transparent pages.


What about this: You're like Super-man with X-ray vision so while you can only see the cover of the book you can also x-ray your way through the entire book itself, deriving content of what the book is like by simply looking at the cover.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

BooksandButterflies said:


> *My si and ni are pretty close. I just wondered if someone could better explain ni for me? Thanks!*:kitteh:


There are some simple definitions *here*:


> Ni – If you did not even notice the apple tree this there, but instead go a sense that the orchards around will soon be cut down and replaced with a housing development, you have experienced Ni.
> 
> Vs
> 
> Si – You look at the apple tree and immediately recall an image of an apple tree you’ve seen before and you were then become aware of the feel of autumn in the air and remember being in an apple orchard picking apples.


-And-

*here*:



> Si and Ni are both more focused and involve a perception of “one thing at a time.” This gives the behavior a sequential appearance, with a sense of beginning, middle and end. With Si, the sequence is often logistical in nature and based on the past. Ni is based on a vision for the future, and the focus is on what steps to take next.


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

Ne and Ni are more similar than they are different. 

Ne-Having a flash of insight into seeing multiple possibilities at once. Ne doms (Ni dom's have this ability to a limited effect) will have sudden bursts when they see various possibilities appearing at once. 

Ni-Having a flash after deliberate use (Ni needs to be used, Ne is just active) of what is coming what is emerging, what can be possible and where things are flowing to. Once again, Dom Ne's have this ability as well but much more muted and less effective, an ENXP do have an introverted component, while NI doms (ONLY DOMS) will have an extroverted component to it. I'd bet that ENXJ's will have similar results, but if Ne or Ni is tertiary or inferior than it is only set to the external or internal. 

This is what makes INtuition doms hard to type because they experience both external and internal intuition. The question is how if they have to focus on using it or not.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

SharkT00th said:


> Ne and Ni are more similar than they are different.
> 
> Ne-Having a flash of insight into seeing multiple possibilities at once. Ne doms (Ni dom's have this ability to a limited effect) will have sudden bursts when they see various possibilities appearing at once.
> 
> ...


Uh no. It's the attitude that comes first, which makes Ne and Ni entirely different function-attitudes. Otherwise, what is the reason for having two distinct function-attitudes if both are capable of doing similar things in the name of intuition? Those deliberate flashes of aha you refer to are conceptualizing with more focus than the Ne seeing multiple possibilities.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

I think he has a point. I type out either ENFP, or ENTP, but seem to have a well developed Ni.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Cosmicsense said:


> I think he has a point. I type out either ENFP, or ENTP, but seem to have a well developed Ni.


Can you define describe how you use both Ne and Ni? Shark described his understanding which is why I asked for clarity on how he can deliberately conceptualize resulting in his thoughts going uncontrollably everywhere. 

I know people believe they can use both Ne and Ni, which is a result of thinking the function is what controls the function-attitude. But *It's the attitude* that controls the function. Otherwise as I have asked Shark, why a need for 8 function-attitudes when 4 will do based on how you are viewing the way they work. When people claim they can use Ne-Ni, Se-Si, Te-Ti, or Fe-Fi, they are simply basing the principles of type on an erroneous assumption. Furthermore people who truly believe they can do this are admitting either they have no differentiated function, hence you cannot claim you are any type.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Can you define describe how you use both Ne and Ni? Shark described his understanding which is why I asked for clarity on how he can deliberately conceptualize resulting in his thoughts going uncontrollably everywhere.


First, you ask me to describe something which you don't believe exists. You claim to know why this can't exist. 



> I know people believe they can use both Ne and Ni, which is a result of thinking the function is what controls the function-attitude. But *It's the attitude* that controls the function. Otherwise as I have asked Shark, why a need for 8 function-attitudes when 4 will do based on how you are viewing the way they work. When people claim they can use Ne-Ni, Se-Si, Te-Ti, or Fe-Fi, they are simply basing the principles of type on an erroneous assumption. Furthermore people who truly believe they can do this are admitting either they have no differentiated function, hence you cannot claim you are any type.


Here, you attempt to insert assumptions which are not in evidence. You are close-minded, sir. Why would I bother trying to blow your mind, when it's already made up perfectly??


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Yes but you believe it exists so I wanted to know how you are describing your personal use. As for assumptions I will gladly refer you to the theory of jung and we can then discuss.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

http://www.typeinsights.com/FreeArticles/Evolvingthe8functionmodel.pdf

I didn't develop Ni until my brother died in 2006. Before this point, I was definitely Ne Dom all the time. The moment I became aware that he had passed, I was different on the inside. Things started to occur for which I had no reasonable explanation. I also developed Fi. 

Ni was seen as an immediate internal knowing of something, usually associated with a rapid symbol displayed internally. The symbol held the information which transmitted the intuition. It was context dependent. A key of sorts. 

Ne is completely different. I look out to the world to experience Ne. It is more about developing possibilities to explain phenomena, kinda like Ni, but quite different at the same time. With Ne, I have a sense of many possibilities, which must be filtered though Ti. Ni is immediate, and certain. It's not always 100%, but close enough that I have learned to trust it. 

Fi developed alongside Ni. I will say that unless you are in a VERY solid state of mind, the results of using your "shadow" functions will likely lead to regression and mishaps. It seems only though developing Fi along my Ni was I able to hold to a center. 

You can choose to believe whatever you want about this or not. I don't really care. I know what I've experienced, and that it's quite, quite different from how I used to be. I now have a round table of personas, which represent styles of processing information from which I can pull from at will. You can label me this or that, but I know I'm beyond it. 

Today, after having balanced out from my PTSD quite a bit, the shadow personas only come out when they must, else when I'm drunk, usually. They do wear on me, but also provide insight into myself and the world around me.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Ashcancowgirl said:


> Laymen's terms eh... it's like seeing external objects (or people) merely as the cover of a book, while being able to read* the pages beneath which impart the information about its composition, motivations, larger contexts etc.
> 
> * maybe receiving impressions is more accurate... it can be a picture book with transparent pages.


This makes sense to me. For me, using Ni is to always recognize an underlying reality behind things, which in most cases is entirely subjective. It's to dig deeper and deeper into a subject/person/idea/etc. in order to understand the fundamental quality of it. Sometimes it involves exploring others' interpretations of things in order to see what's already been said, but always with the ultimate goal of moving past them to come to your own truth. Until I have my own idea (or even Idea) of something, I won't be satisfied.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Cosmicsense said:


> http://www.typeinsights.com/FreeArticles/Evolvingthe8functionmodel.pdf
> 
> I didn't develop Ni until my brother died in 2006. Before this point, I was definitely Ne Dom all the time. The moment I became aware that he had passed, I was different on the inside. Things started to occur for which I had no reasonable explanation. I also developed Fi.
> 
> ...


What you're saying is irreconcilable with the function definitions, and in essence you're suggesting you've gone totally insane. You can't have both Fi and Fe, it's the source of your values, you either adhere to "tribal" Fe or you don't. It's a binary choice, same goes for Ne and Ni.

You probably don't care and it sounds like you've made up your mind, but you're probably confusing Ni with Si and Fi and Ti. Maybe you've experienced Ni and Fi before, but you wouldn't have been conscious of it.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

Cellar Door said:


> What you're saying is irreconcilable with the function definitions, and in essence you're suggesting you've gone totally insane.


Nope, I'm suggesting your assumptions of what's possible for the functions is incorrect. It's an assumption which is simply not so. Hey, insanity can be fun from time to time...



> You can't have both Fi and Fe, it's the source of your values, you either adhere to "tribal" Fe or you don't. It's a binary choice, same goes for Ne and Ni.


That's just dumb. You can most certainly have both. It's a matter of seeing things on multiple levels at once, integrating all variables, and choosing which to lead from for the particular situation at hand.



> You probably don't care and it sounds like you've made up your mind, but you're probably confusing Ni with Si and Fi and Ti. Maybe you've experienced Ni and Fi before, but you wouldn't have been conscious of it.


I do care... to upgrade this system which is obviously defunct.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Can you define describe how you use both Ne and Ni? Shark described his understanding which is why I asked for clarity on how he can deliberately conceptualize resulting in his thoughts going uncontrollably everywhere.
> 
> I know people believe they can use both Ne and Ni, which is a result of thinking the function is what controls the function-attitude. But *It's the attitude* that controls the function. Otherwise as I have asked Shark, why a need for 8 function-attitudes when 4 will do based on how you are viewing the way they work. When people claim they can use Ne-Ni, Se-Si, Te-Ti, or Fe-Fi, they are simply basing the principles of type on an erroneous assumption. Furthermore people who truly believe they can do this are admitting either they have no differentiated function, hence you cannot claim you are any type.


According to what you said , or seems, you say that people have the Attitude that controls the functions but in doing so differentiated among the four types?! To go on to say that using eight functions will cause an undifferentiated in ones type?!?!

I can't seem to wrap this around any reasoning to be honest. The very fact of differentiating among the four types together is the very idea of undifferentiated. Since differentiation is within the functions a separation of functions. Which leads to my confusion, when you say that you assume people claim that they have no differentiation, hence no type.

If you would please clarify this for me please,
Of course I am by Jung's standards


I wanted to add......what controls the attitude?


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

@*myjazz*

It seems he's confusing the words: undifferentiated with non-preferential , amongst many other things, lulz.


the question is: why can't we prefer not to prefer ?? i don't get why that's "insane" or impossible or what have you. because some dead dude kinda sorta said so, yet didn't, yet others hinted at it later, and later other people said so, absolutely, no exceptions, except others say yea-huh!! yet aren't listened to ??

LOL, no thanks.


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

If you are arguing that all functions is an ego attitude, than doesn't that mean you're most dominant function is really a base function pointed inward or outward? If intuition is you're primary function, than Ne vs. Ni is determined by where you orient it, externally or internally. this indicates that the only difference between an INXJ vs. an ENXP is where they place their intuition. Following this logical train, why can't an ENXP direct their intuition internally? 

All types can use any function, it comes down to the order, and how proficient they are in using that function. There is a thread stickied on this forum that talks about the Demon Function. That theory seems to put a nail in yours given the fact that the ego is controlling you're function, and turning a function in a different direction that you're not used to will have negative consequences. For example an ESTP who will suddenly utilize Ne will see visions of doom as opposed to the visions of what could happen that ENTP's are used to seeing.


----------



## InsideOutside (Feb 2, 2011)

myjazz said:


> As simple as I can to explain Si and Ni is: Sensing is pointed inward. Intuition is pointed inward...not much explaining there but simple it is. Now a visual aide to go with this.
> 
> If you was to ask Si to paint or imagine a boat you could get this
> http://img.posterlounge.de/images/w...-beach-at-saintes-maries-de-la-mer-148011.jpg
> ...


How is the Ni boat different than how an Ne user would draw a boat?


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

InsideOutside said:


> How is the Ni boat different than how an Ne user would draw a boat?


The Ne user boat would have wings while the Ni user would draw something incomprehensible. When questioned the Ni user would say our definition of boat is too narrow. :tongue:


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

myjazz said:


> According to what you said , or seems, you say that people have the Attitude that controls the functions but in doing so differentiated among the four types?! To go on to say that using eight functions will cause an undifferentiated in ones type?!?!
> 
> I can't seem to wrap this around any reasoning to be honest. The very fact of differentiating among the four types together is the very idea of undifferentiated. Since differentiation is within the functions a separation of functions. Which leads to my confusion, when you say that you assume people claim that they have no differentiation, hence no type.
> 
> ...


When Jung uses the word “differentiated”, he is generally referring to the primary or dominant function-attitude.


> The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden, This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.


As for what controls the attitude, I am not sure what you are asking. But again per Jung:


> In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But, in addition, I shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life. The former I would term general attitude types, since they are distinguished by the direction of general interest or libido movement, while the latter I would call function-types.
> 
> The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on. the part of the object had to be continually frustrated. The extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance must always be paramount.
> 
> The relation between subject and object, considered biologically, is always a relation of adaptation, since every relation between subject and object presupposes mutually modifying effects from either side. These modifications constitute the adaptation. The typical attitudes to the object, therefore, are adaptation processes. Nature knows two fundamentally different ways of adaptation, which determine the further existence of the living organism the one is by increased fertility, accompanied by a relatively small degree of defensive power and individual conservation; the other is by individual equipment of manifold means of self-protection, coupled with a relatively insignificant fertility. This biological contrast seems not merely to be the analogue, but also the general foundation of our two psychological modes of adaptation, At this point a mere general indication must suffice; on the one hand, I need only point to the peculiarity of the extravert, which constantly urges him to spend and propagate himself in every way, and, on the other, to the tendency of the introvert to defend himself against external claims, to conserve himself from any expenditure of energy directly related to the object, thus consolidating for himself the most secure and impregnable position.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

SharkT00th said:


> If you are arguing that all functions is an ego attitude, than doesn't that mean you're most dominant function is really a base function pointed inward or outward? If intuition is you're primary function, than Ne vs. Ni is determined by where you orient it, externally or internally. this indicates that the only difference between an INXJ vs. an ENXP is where they place their intuition. Following this logical train, why can't an ENXP direct their intuition internally?


They can and do. The fanatics who stick to this awkwardly evolved, and misinterpreted modern version of Jung's theory use everything within their will to rationalize this as another function seeming as if Ni, when the obvious simplicity of their err shines brightly. 



> All types can use any function, it comes down to the order, and how proficient they are in using that function. There is a thread stickied on this forum that talks about the Demon Function. That theory seems to put a nail in yours given the fact that the ego is controlling you're function, and turning a function in a different direction that you're not used to will have negative consequences. For example an ESTP who will suddenly utilize Ne will see visions of doom as opposed to the visions of what could happen that ENTP's are used to seeing.


Think of a terrible-two, or someone just learning to ride a bike. You're kicking and screaming to get your way, and accumulating bruises all over the place. What happens over time? Same if you continue to work on your "shadow" functions. They will, at first, and in most people, seem to give only negative results. If you keep to your "center" and accept *YOUR OWN* evil...our species evolution and ancestrial/instinctual memories/inclinations towards what is modernly deemed "evil", you can push through and develop the functions without it being "demonic". 

Demons are just the personification of the ID...the unconscious desires left, in large part, from previous "crunchtimes". 

I once had to explain it to a friend as such: 

"it may not look pretty now, but have patience, for what emerges has wings, and flies away..."


----------



## surra (Oct 1, 2012)

This is an example of Ni in ACTION:

_Here, there is a concept of what is white culture, which means culture from the south or culture from LA, and then there is what people consider black culture, and there is Hispanic culture, and that's it. Everybody else is invisible. Until September 11th, Arabic culture was also invisible but now it is visible in a negative perspective.

_Diamanda Galas, interview


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Neverontime said:


> Not exactly, but I'll try and explain. Intuition unconsciously adds something to the sensory impressions being perceived in order to make sense of them. For example, motives behind other people's actions, since motives are rarely shared along with actions, the only way we can hope to accurately predict them is by recognising patterns involved with people's actions and motives. Ne recognises patterns that have been objectively given by experience, Ni recognises patterns that aren't objectively given.
> 
> Obviously, everyone can predict motives behind actions, what determines which perceiving function we prefer is what information we trust and focus on the most. Sensors won't intuitively add information if what's coming in through the five senses already makes sense to them. Intuitives are still likely to trust what comes to them unconsciously, even if the sensory impression already makes sense as it is.


From the description given here, Ni rather sounds like excessive assuming and BSing.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> As for what controls the attitude, I am not sure what you are asking. But again per Jung:


I meant as in what controls the Attitude, or how do we choose the Attitude, or even how is the Attitude in the direction it takes or towards. What makes the Attitude, what differate's the Attitude, how did the Attitude get to where it is?

I tried to cover all base's I might have missed one or two >.<


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Cosmicsense said:


> "it may not look pretty now, but have patience, for what emerges has wings, and flies away..."


I see some plagiarism coming into my usage


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Neverontime said:


> Jung - Attitude
> 
> "To have a certain attitude means to be ready for something definite, even though this definite something is unconscious, since having an attitude is synonymous with an *a priori* direction towards a definite thing, whether this be present in consciousness or not. The state of readiness, which I conceive attitude to be, always consists in the presence of a certain subjective constellation, a definite combination of psychic factors or contents, which will either determine action in this or that definite direction, or will comprehend an external stimulus in this or that definite way."
> 
> ...


Jung tends to reads like a foreign language to me. Is it possible for you to answer my question with your own words?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Jung tends to reads like a foreign language to me. Is it possible for you to answer my question with your own words?


All the introverted functions are supposedly, orientated by the image impressions/schemas that are already outlined in the psyche, passed down as a kind of psychological inheritance.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Neverontime said:


> They don't work together, they're mutually contrasting, they cancel each other out. They achieve balance by opposing one another which prevents either going too far


see, i don't think they do, or that anything does. think of the Se-input as facts of life, how things just are, exact experiences--these all form a source of information. these sources, whether people are aware of them or not, become "pieces" that can be separated and viewed in a fashion that wasn't possible before hand when they were connected and solidified within (what i would consider) that plane of "exact existence" that an Se-user lives from. 

and like JungYes was saying, they really are like introverted/extroverted forms of each other (i've been thinking that for awhile, and that really, in fashion, they'd be more similar in cognition since it'd just [more or less] be reversed. maybe that particular psychic situation was what gave rise to myths like the doppelganger and such--complete opposites, where one is the evil, "backwards" version of the self). it's like the same thing, but at one point it's turned outwards, and at another it's turned inwards, each with different final products. 

this viewing of what would be reality in a fashion that can be broken and rearranged is what i think gives Ni-doms the "perspective shifts" that are common to the type.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> They don't work together, they're mutually contrasting, they cancel each other out. They achieve balance by opposing one another which prevents either going too far


Well, only S and N as concepts are (insomuch as they are just different realms of perception). When both exist in different orientations, they can work together without one negating the other (although the inferior one will be downplayed in favor of the dominant - Jung seemed to think that this was mainly because of an I/E attitude, rather than some absolute aversion to the inferior - after all, everyone needs SNTF to survive comfortably in life, so it's not that people just dislike a function for no reason - it just doesn't represent how they see themselves, which causes them to downplay it, since it's not working toward their ego desires in a way that can be identified with the ideas they have about themselves, whether or not these ideas are positive, negative, or neutral - it often doesn't consciously coincide with the ideas they have about the world in relation to them for various reasons, including the fact that inferiority complexes tend to emerge around there (not because they are "bad" with the inferior, but because it just falls close to a person's shadow, which causes them to often project their perceived failings/shortcomings/stuff they feel like they might not have control over and might get persecuted for, etc. onto the outside world - this all just gets colored by a person's inferior function, but the projections can be about anything - this "anything" will just end up getting rationalized through the lens of the inferior (so, for instance, someone might be afraid of making mistakes (normal complex with personal origins), and if they're an inferior Te type, they might rationalize their fear through the lens of thought-oriented conceptualization and perhaps just say that "they're stupid, too disorganized, etc." or what have you), which in-and-of-themselves, threaten a person's psychological world view). So really, most people's problems with functions would come from them resisting their subjectivity (extraverts) or objectivity (introverts), since a transfer between these is often perceived to pose a threat to the stability of one's world view that they orient themselves to just to get through life the way they think is best for them based on personal ideas. The functions themselves can be just fine and buzzing along as normally as ever, but psychologically, a person might just resist the one that opposes their dominant world view the most, since they can't see any reason for it to matter - why contest your own world-view would be the question they might ask, especially if it's working for you. It usually takes emotionally loaded conflicts in a person's life for them to either abandon being on terms with the world (extraversion) in favor of your subjective concerns about it in relation to your own ideas (introversion) or abandon caring about their own subjective ideas and concerns about the outside world in favor of just living in accord with it. This is the crux of the theory - frankly, I think this is why Jung probably saw the auxes as fairly irrelevant to the personality, because they don't conflict with the dominant (they serve it), so a person should be able to adapt themselves fine there (although not with the sophistication of the dominant, which has absolute sovereignty over the person's mentalities). Adaptation problems in life were his #1 concern about people's mental health, not what they have confidence in (after all, he was trying to explain neurosis in people and how to treat it). Neurosis wasn't necessarily what we think of as "mental illness" today to Jung, although it could lead down that path - he thought it was mainly a reflection of adaptation problems and misguided ideas that may stem from all kinds of sophisticated personal defenses and shields against insecurities a person might put up, ultimately coming from a person's issues with adaptation in areas of their lives. The inferior function is not neurotic - in fact, Jung thought repressing this is what might amplify neurotic tendencies in people, because it reflects a repression of personal potential or ideas of this in people, especially in those who were too concerned with appealing to the collective, usually struggling with issues compromising issues of the self and issues of the ego drives.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

So, in short, the inferior would represent the way that introverts defend their values and ideals against the forces of the outside world that they feel they cannot successfully influence (so, for instance, someone with inferior Fe might just justify their positions by deliberately trying to exclude consideration for the influentual aspects of the outside world concerning other people and objective evaluations of anything that doesn't satisfy the goals of their introversion (through dominant Ti). They might often feel detached from social niches and just detached from the concerns of others to begin with, which would largely be on them for their unwillingness to open up to the idea that there is indeed a social institution of sorts that might live up to their subjective views and interests - or that the feelings of others will actually give purpose to their overly a priori thinking, lol. But once again, it would mainly be the idea of objectivity that unconsciously intimidates any introvert - the function is just how this gets rationalized, but it's not the function itself that the introvert necessarily hates, it's just the difficulty they have finding their purpose in it that they unconsciously tend to resent. Introverts tend to be the kinds of people who hold a lot of resentment against the outside world for not being on terms with them, which extraverts might despise or find hard to take seriously about introverts. Introverts tend to be the bigger control freaks, I think, over extraverts, the latter who are actually often unconsciously insecure with their own ideas about life and might justify their self-resistance on objective factors or abnormalities that can relate to collective consensus, rather than their own ideas (they tend to find subjectivity unreal and, "in the grip," might feel like they are being possessed by dark forces within themselves that they feel might lead them astray in morally unacceptible ways - Jung seemed to think that it was these types who might neurotically resist extreme insecurities here by acting downright barbaric, perhaps very rude and egocentric in a way that looks like a "terrible two year old").


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

celticstained said:


> see, i don't think they do, or that anything does. think of the Se-input as facts of life, how things just are, exact experiences--these all form a source of information. these sources, whether people are aware of them or not, become "pieces" that can be separated and viewed in a fashion that wasn't possible before hand when they were connected and solidified within (what i would consider) that plane of "exact existence" that an Se-user lives from.
> 
> and like JungYes was saying, they really are like introverted/extroverted forms of each other (i've been thinking that for awhile, and that really, in fashion, they'd be more similar in cognition since it'd just [more or less] be reversed. maybe that particular psychic situation was what gave rise to myths like the doppelganger and such--complete opposites, where one is the evil, "backwards" version of the self). it's like the same thing, but at one point it's turned outwards, and at another it's turned inwards, each with different final products.
> 
> this viewing of what would be reality in a fashion that can be broken and rearranged is what i think gives Ni-doms the "perspective shifts" that are common to the type.


Se doesn't represent the input of the facts of life though. It represents one version of perception because it suppresses both the intuitive and the subjective factors of perception, so it can lead to an incorrect or inadequate understanding as often as Si, Ni and Ne do. All the relevant information is rarely contained within what's happening in front of you. Sometimes what comes in through the senses is misleading.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@JungyesMBTIno Jung saw S and N as mutually contrasting and in order to perceive with one, consciousness suppresses the other (he wrote this in Psychological Types). They still balance out the psyche on the whole, but not through working together, but through existing together in the psyche. He said something to the effect of the functions were like points on a compass, they each represent a direction, in order to choose one, we have to _not_choose the other. To have direction we have to focus on what's important and disregard what's irrelevant. Information can be perceived by either focusing on the surface or by focusing on what's behind the surface, obviously if we're focused on one then we aren't focused on the other, because they represent opposite directions for our attention. We can only be directed by one or the other in any situation, therefore we can't focus on both S and N. 

So, it's not exactly about repressing anything that doesn't fit our world view, it's simply a case of choosing one results in not choosing the other, what's not chosen sinks into unconsciousness.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> @_JungyesMBTIno_ Jung saw S and N as mutually contrasting and in order to perceive with one, consciousness suppresses the other (he wrote this in Psychological Types). They still balance out the psyche on the whole, but not through working together, but through existing together in the psyche. He said something to the effect of the functions were like points on a compass, they each represent a direction, in order to choose one, we have to _not_choose the other. To have direction we have to focus on what's important and disregard what's irrelevant. Information can be perceived by either focusing on the surface or by focusing on what's behind the surface, obviously if we're focused on one then we aren't focused on the other, because they represent opposite directions for our attention. We can only be directed by one or the other in any situation, therefore we can't focus on both S and N.
> 
> So, it's not exactly about repressing anything that doesn't fit our world view, it's simply a case of choosing one results in not choosing the other, what's not chosen sinks into unconsciousness.


This kinda goes hand in hand with the Ni---Se topic from before. While the Se is being focused on the Ni is dangling in the background (unconscious) going uuhhh what was that.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

myjazz said:


> This kinda goes hand in hand with the Ni---Se topic from before. While the Se is being focused on the Ni is dangling in the background (unconscious) going uuhhh what was that.


Sure, nobody was trying to imply that one function wasn't present in the unconscious. I was trying to say that Se doesn't feed data to Ni, Ni is a perception function in its own right, it fulfils the same cognitive role as Se, only Ni places importance on the subjective factor and what's behind the surface and Se places importance on the objective factor and what's on the surface, that's why ones Ni and ones Se. It doesn't need to Se to hand back the disregarded data that it didn't want to trust in the first place.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> @_JungyesMBTIno_ Jung saw S and N as mutually contrasting and in order to perceive with one, consciousness suppresses the other (he wrote this in Psychological Types). They still balance out the psyche on the whole, but not through working together, but through existing together in the psyche. He said something to the effect of the functions were like points on a compass, they each represent a direction, in order to choose one, we have to _not_choose the other. To have direction we have to focus on what's important and disregard what's irrelevant. Information can be perceived by either focusing on the surface or by focusing on what's behind the surface, obviously if we're focused on one then we aren't focused on the other, because they represent opposite directions for our attention. We can only be directed by one or the other in any situation, therefore we can't focus on both S and N.
> 
> So, it's not exactly about repressing anything that doesn't fit our world view, it's simply a case of choosing one results in not choosing the other, what's not chosen sinks into unconsciousness.


Sure, the here and now, you have to choose either one of them. 

But I don't see any reason to assume perception is something that only involves the present. Take this forum for example. Internet-time is different. Interaction is different. Every word is registered 'as is'. Respons time can be quick, or take months. It is discontinuous. 

I don't see any reason to assume a decision or judgement always involves the future. One could make a different judgement based on new information or insight. I think that sometimes it may actually be relevant for the future , because a change in postulate of something from the past could significantly affect your future perception.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Sure, the here and now, you have to choose either one of them.
> 
> But I don't see any reason to assume perception is something that only involves the present. Take this forum for example. Internet-time is different. Interaction is different. Every word is registered 'as is'. Respons time can be quick, or take months. It is discontinuous.
> 
> I don't see any reason to assume a decision or judgement always involves the future. One could make a different judgement based on new information or insight. I think that sometimes it may actually be relevant for the future , because a change in postulate of something from the past could significantly affect your future perception.


Doesn't it just rather beg the question what time is anyway, and how we actually experience time? Do you actually mean that time is different or do you simply mean that internet is a separate social space that is dislocated from the physical world? What is the difference of having a real-time IM conversation and talking to someone over the phone and talking to a person face to face?


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

Functianalyst said:


> The attitude of extraversion/introversion is the one thing that Dr. Jung seems to believe is innate in the personality:


I have two young children, one extroverted one introverted, and I saw the difference in temperament and need for stimulation from very early on. It's fascinating.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Neverontime said:


> Se doesn't represent the input of the facts of life though. It represents one version of perception because it suppresses both the intuitive and the subjective factors of perception, so it can lead to an incorrect or inadequate understanding as often as Si, Ni and Ne do. All the relevant information is rarely contained within what's happening in front of you. Sometimes what comes in through the senses is misleading.


"facts of life", "actual occurrences", "what happened?"--whatever you'd like to call it, or which ever combination of words triggers the meaning in you head. all that i was really getting at is that each would be used (maybe not consciously--or better yet, the _focus_ wouldn't be on what we call the inferior). what i'm not sure about is how intuition and sensing would complement each other (and let's not confuse the word complement for any sort of positive outcome; more like "in which way will they naturally align themselves in order for a human being to function throughout life).

edit: Neverontime, are you saying that only one is picked consciously, as in the conscious mind has to choose a "direction on the compass", and in doing so the person effectively ignores every other direction? if so, wouldn't that leave a "portion" (or whatever) of the mind that could and would have to pick the "opposite direction", and we refer to this as the unconscious? 

why couldn't these two different portions work together, even if one side (the conscious side) isn't aware of it? i mean, it seems as if you can hear others include perspectives that would be more akin to their inferior, almost as if the inferior is supporting it, or as if the dominant could not exist within a vacuum.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Doesn't it just rather beg the question what time is anyway, and how we actually experience time? Do you actually mean that time is different or do you simply mean that internet is a separate social space that is dislocated from the physical world? What is the difference of having a real-time IM conversation and talking to someone over the phone and talking to a person face to face?


Surely there are differences, like bodylanguage, facial expression. For what it matters to a person, of course. But imagine the social environment for Extraverted Feeling in 1920 and now, with mass-media, internet, and a whole different fabric of local and global society. I have high regard for his observations, but Jung was also very clear in assigning a gender to a cognitive type. Extraverted Sensation types were typically men in the world around him. That doesn't seem to be the case now. It was merely his observation and just statistics to compare it to, but it doesn't make a strong case for nature vs nurture. Of course the description of S has changed since. Although it seems to me, for a dichotomy that shouldn't matter. Because if it isn't N, it's S whatever you define it with.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Sure, the here and now, you have to choose either one of them.
> 
> But I don't see any reason to assume perception is something that only involves the present. Take this forum for example. Internet-time is different. Interaction is different. Every word is registered 'as is'. Respons time can be quick, or take months. It is discontinuous.
> 
> I don't see any reason to assume a decision or judgement always involves the future. One could make a different judgement based on new information or insight. I think that sometimes it may actually be relevant for the future , because a change in postulate of something from the past could significantly affect your future perception.


Maybe so, I'm not quite sure what yourself getting at tbh.


----------



## SQarlettK (Aug 30, 2012)

Yeah, for me Ni = deduction, and Ne = induction.

Ni = Sherlock Holmes and puzzles of information folding in the head.
Ne= Breaking "all" into pieces, and giving new meaning to this pieces. creativity.

Se = action, response to a stimulus without thinking.
Si = action preceded by thinking about what to do at this point.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

celticstained said:


> "facts of life", "actual occurrences", "what happened?"--whatever you'd like to call it, or which ever combination of words triggers the meaning in you head. all that i was really getting at is that each would be used (maybe not consciously--or better yet, the _focus_ wouldn't be on what we call the inferior). what i'm not sure about is how intuition and sensing would complement each other (and let's not confuse the word complement for any sort of positive outcome; more like "in which way will they naturally align themselves in order for a human being to function throughout life).


From what I've read, I get the impression that the unconscious contents are steadily coming into consciousness, without our knowledge and creating a balance. 



> edit: Neverontime, are you saying that only one is picked consciously, as in the conscious mind has to choose a "direction on the compass", and in doing so the person effectively ignores every other direction? if so, wouldn't that leave a "portion" (or whatever) of the mind that could and would have to pick the "opposite direction", and we refer to this as the unconscious?


I think when a function becomes differentiated, that's the direction chosen and consciousness will aim to stick to this direction. Like choosing justice over mercy, then mercy will sink into the unconscious. Maybe the unconscious tries to influence consciousness with its own aim whenever it sees a window of opportunity. If the unconscious is suppressed too far, it's contents will leak into the conscious, trying to gain attention. Tbh the whole consciousness vs unconsciousness is not something I've actually thought much about yet. 



> why couldn't these two different portions work together, even if one side (the conscious side) isn't aware of it? i mean, it seems as if you can hear others include perspectives that would be more akin to their inferior, almost as if the inferior is supporting it, or as if the dominant could not exist within a vacuum.


Maybe we have a different idea of the phrase 'working together', I think of the phrase representing working towards the same things, which is why I don't see them as working together, but each trying to go in their own direction, which results in some middle ground.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

mimesis said:


> Sure, the here and now, you have to choose either one of them.
> 
> But I don't see any reason to assume perception is something that only involves the present. Take this forum for example. Internet-time is different. Interaction is different. Every word is registered 'as is'. Respons time can be quick, or take months. It is discontinuous.
> 
> I don't see any reason to assume a decision or judgement always involves the future. One could make a different judgement based on new information or insight. I think that sometimes it may actually be relevant for the future , because a change in postulate of something from the past could significantly affect your future perception.


Simply put it doesn't follow a rule like that


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Surely there are differences, like bodylanguage, facial expression. For what it matters to a person, of course. But imagine the social environment for Extraverted Feeling in 1920 and now, with mass-media, internet, and a whole different fabric of local and global society. I have high regard for his observations, but Jung was also very clear in assigning a gender to a cognitive type. Extraverted Sensation types were typically men in the world around him. That doesn't seem to be the case now. It was merely his observation and just statistics to compare it to, but it doesn't make a strong case for nature vs nurture. Of course the description of S has changed since. Although it seems to me, for a dichotomy that shouldn't matter. Because if it isn't N, it's S whatever you define it with.


What @Neverontime said. I am not sure where you are getting with this post, what the purpose of it is. My point was that you made a claim where you say our perception is affected by time and I postitulate that what you say seems more related to space than time. My point was that internet exists outside of physical space - it's cyberspace. It's a social space but exists only abstractly so. I can open up my harddrive but I will find nothing there. The point I was then making by contrasting it to a telephone call and a face to face meeting is that it's all situated in different spaces with a different level of physicality involved. 

When I speak to you over the phone I hear you voice but when I write to you in an IM program I only see text. However, what is common to all three forms of communication I mentioned was that it occurs real-time. It significantly counters the claim you make about how communication over the internet affects time. And writing on a forum is no different than sending a person a letter. Again, what differentiates the two is the level of physicality involved. When I write a letter to you I receive a physical letter. It exists in paper form and thus also exists in the physical space. When I write you a PM on a forum it contains the same content and is conveyed in exactly the same manner but it's entirely abstact in nature. It is thus space-related.

I don't think perception of time is related to our perceiving functions but when it comes to our perception of space? Most definitely so.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Maybe so, I'm not quite sure what yourself getting at tbh.


I said it in relation to: 



> "Information can be perceived by either focusing on the surface or by focusing on what's behind the surface, obviously if we're focused on one then we aren't focused on the other, because they represent opposite directions for our attention. We can only be directed by one or the other in any situation, therefore we can't focus on both S and N."


So my answer was basically 'not at a time'. 

But you can reprocess information. For instance, I personally have learned to try and detach myself from Si, and even repress Ne (peeking behind the surface) *at realtime*. (here and now) I don't follow those hunches blindly, I just park them for re-evaluation. Just like I try to park my Fi judgement. I don't say I distrust 'them', but they need to 'shut up while I am on the phone'.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> But you can reprocess information. For instance, I personally have learned to try and detach myself from Si, and even repress Ne (peeking behind the surface) *at realtime*. (here and now) I don't follow those hunches blindly, I just park them for re-evaluation. Just like I try to park my Fi judgement. I don't say I distrust 'them', but they need to 'shut up while I am on the phone'.


I do agree with that we can "park" our functions. I can clearly shut down my Ji in favor for taking in more Ne stream-of-consciousness. It does require a little bit of an effort but is very possible to do so. I can apparently shut down Si with some effort as well by trying to focus my perception not on what it physically means, but abstractly. 

This is why I ultimately think the whole conscious-unconscious dichotomy is ultimately problematic when we speak of differentiation and so on.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

@Neverontime 



> If the unconscious is suppressed too far, it's contents will leak into the conscious, trying to gain attention.


--

i think that part is interesting, like it "fits", if that makes sense. like it's something you can either see happening, or it's a recognized, overplayed theme in literature or movies (the popular, long-lasting ones are usually archetypical [i think]). as if the more you try to deny a side of yourself, you do so to the detriment of what you're trying to preserve, until your conscious self either integrates some of the opposing side and growth is achieved, or it breaks. (to be honest too, i also haven't really thought about/read anything on this topic--kind of pulling things out of my ass as the conversation goes on lol--but it sounds right to me).



> Maybe we have a different idea of the phrase 'working together', I think of the phrase representing working towards the same things, which is why I don't see them as working together, but each trying to go in their own direction, which results in some middle ground.


--

i think we do have a different meaning when we say that. although, going with your meaning, could they not be in sync with each other? the viewpoints and areas of importance may be alien to either side, but i don't think that in itself would automatically result in a "mental fight"--that's not to say that it would be common, it's just that i think the "working together" would be weighted more on the health of the relationship between the two. 

by "working together" i just meant that P-types (the same would go for J-types) will need both forms of perception for the dominant view to exist. whether the dominant view is aware of the information or perspective it receives, i still think it would rely heavily on the unconscious or else it couldn't function. let's look at it very simply--this may not be how it actually works though lol: let's take Ne and Si, from the perspective of Si being inferior. so, Si in a very general way is a subjective view of the real world, with a focus on taking the physical surroundings and abstracting them till you take some significance that doesn't truly exist in an objective fashion (like, a roaring fire is a primal sense of safety, comfort, and collective-ness, that stretches back to a time when early man gathered around it for safety, comfort and this bred a sense of collective-ness or community). So, from the inferior position, this i think would influence Ne and give rise to the behavior that is normally associated with Ne-doms. 

i think that an Ne-dom may be unconsciously drawn towards something from their Si, but upon having this view erupt into consciousness, they flee (i really have no idea, i was just trying to connect it to your view of "working together", each striving for a different goal). 

as far as what i meant by "working together": the Ne-dom may or may not be aware of an Si-influence, but by having it in the inferior position, it would be less crucial to their conscious selves and therefore this Si-viewpoint may be more malleable, less specified and rigidly adhered to, which would allow it to morph and change. but the inferior would still be necessary because it is the thing that is morphed, and is changed, almost as if the action of deviating is the action of the dominant. so really... lol... i guess what we're saying (whether it's right or not) wouldn't really conflict since both would have different aims or "goals" and in that sense they wouldn't work together, but each is necessary to the functioning of the other, so in that sense they would work together...

thoughts? ;p


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Symbolically speaking, both sides of the compass would be working together, since the dominant wouldn't be leading without the inferior allowing it to (through magnetic polarity). It's like in magnetic polarity, where both may oppose in principle, but that's what brings them together as a united force in reality. It's just that you can't consciously experience both sides of the force at once, because, in terms of consciousness, you would cancel out the force altogether, rendering orientation useless. And then, the inferior is in the opposite attitude of the dominant, so considering that people can't hold two attitudes from different realms of thinking together at once (be objective and subjective with equal priority, because that wouldn't get you anywhere in terms of goals), the one in the opposite attitude, which is far enough away from the dominant attitude not to threaten it, can be experienced, but this experience is often unconsciously (due to the functions opposing each other) or just distorted, as well as downplayed as the decisive factor guiding the person's consciousness toward dealing with life. You probably can live your inferior, but it's always going to be colored by the dominant and never by the guidance of the inferior first (e.g. inferior Se - you would never expect present sensory experience to satisfy how you direct your thoughts and actions - you will, at best, just manage to be on terms with how your consciousness is registering sensory impact for temporary goals or periods).


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I do agree with that we can "park" our functions. I can clearly shut down my Ji in favor for taking in more Ne stream-of-consciousness. It does require a little bit of an effort but is very possible to do so. I can apparently shut down Si with some effort as well by trying to focus my perception not on what it physically means, but abstractly.
> 
> This is why I ultimately think the whole conscious-unconscious dichotomy is ultimately problematic when we speak of differentiation and so on.


Well, that's my point basically, and I certainly agree with you that it takes effort to do so, so I have my moments. =)


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Symbolically speaking, both sides of the compass would be working together, since the dominant wouldn't be leading without the inferior allowing it to (through magnetic polarity). It's like in magnetic polarity, where both may oppose in principle, but that's what brings them together as a united force in reality.


FYI.. 

*Psychodynamics*
In human thermodynamics, psychodynamics is the study of mental processes, namely conscious and sub-conscious dynamics, as these related to basic human drives and instincts, according to the first and second law of thermodynamics. [1][3] In the 1969 words of English child attachment psychologist John Bowlby, who adamantly objected to Frued's “dynamic view of psychology”, psychodynamics is defined as: 

“[The dynamic view is] propositions concerning psychological energy or psychological forces; concepts such as conservation of energy, entropy, direction and magnitude of forces, [in conjunction with] a principle of inertia.”

In a modern medical sense, psychodynamics is the systematized study and theory of the psychological forces that underlie human behavior, emphasizing the interplay between unconscious and conscious motivation and the functional significance of emotion. [11] 

The science of psychodynamics stem from the interaction and synergy of ideas between Ernst von Brücke (Freud's medical school adviser), German physician, physicist, and co-founder of the first law of thermodynamics Hermann von Helmholtz (Brücke's medical school friend) and Austrian psychiatrist Sigmund Freud. From this foundation, Freud absorbed the logic that the universal law of the conservation of force (i.e. kraft or energy), as defined by the first law of thermodynamics *applied to* mental life, particularly at the subconscious level. The second law or entropy aspect of this view, i.e. psychic entropy, was developed later by Freud's associate Carl Jung. [4]

Etymology
The etymology of the term "psychodynamics" likely stems from or was influenced in its synthesis and developmental use by the 1860 publication of Elemente der Psychophysik (Elements of Psychophysics) by German physicist and psychologist Gustav Fechner, who coined the term “psychophysics” as the study of the relation between physical stimuli and the intensity of perception of the stimuli. [12] The term "psychodynamics", however, was not used immediately. Early prototype synonyms include: the "dynamic view" or "mental dynamics" (Freud, 1923), "psychic energism and dynamism" (Jung, 1928), the "psychical energy model" (Bowlby, 1969), "dynamic psychology", or "energy psychology". According to a 1979 translation, psychodynamics refers to the forces, motives, and energy generated by the deepest of human needs.

Psychodynamics - Hmolpedia


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I said it in relation to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, I now get what you were trying to say. 
Not at one time is true.
In my previous posts, I was attempting to explain why Ni doesn't work with Se data. So I wasn't actually discussing a person's entire perception process, only the functions and how they place importance on opposite portions of perception. When Ni is perceiving, Se and it's contents are repressed.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

celticstained said:


> @Neverontime
> 
> --
> 
> ...


I don't think there is a 'mental fight' since the dominant has much more influence. I do think that the dominant values the inferior perspective for certain objectives, because the inferiors strengths are the dominant weaknesses. I expect that the inferior still makes its contribution to the health and balance of the whole personality. So in that sense they are working together, in the same way that I see the different attitudes and perspectives of people, all contributing to the overall balance in society.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> I do agree with that we can "park" our functions. I can clearly shut down my Ji in favor for taking in more Ne stream-of-consciousness. It does require a little bit of an effort but is very possible to do so. I can apparently shut down Si with some effort as well by trying to focus my perception not on what it physically means, but abstractly.
> 
> This is why I ultimately think the whole conscious-unconscious dichotomy is ultimately problematic when we speak of differentiation and so on.


Since you mentioned Si...you can answer somewhere else if you want....how does Si affect Ne or Ne affect Si?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Since you mentioned Si...you can answer somewhere else if you want....how does Si affect Ne or Ne affect Si?


Ne uses Si as a bouncing plank to start idea-generation. Si-Ne is about first getting an Si-impression and then you can use Ne to generate ideas what this impression means. For example:

This chair is so comfortable to sit on, it reminds me that I haven't been sitting down all day. I need to sit down more often. Being stressed like this at work isn't doing me any good. 

if you pay attention to the sentence structure, you can really see how the first portion of the first sentence is Si (it's focused on the impression the chair made), but how it then continues into generating ideas based on that one Si-pattern.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Ne uses Si as a bouncing plank to start idea-generation. Si-Ne is about first getting an Si-impression and then you can use Ne to generate ideas what this impression means. For example:
> 
> This chair is so comfortable to sit on, it reminds me that I haven't been sitting down all day. I need to sit down more often. Being stressed like this at work isn't doing me any good.
> 
> if you pay attention to the sentence structure, you can really see how the first portion of the first sentence is Si (it's focused on the impression the chair made), but how it then continues into generating ideas based on that one Si-pattern.


Very interesting. I *heavily* repress this mentality (especially reasoning from a subjective standpoint in terms of sensation, like thinking that because something leaves so-and-so impression on me, I can conclude "blah, blah..." objective facts). I can't say I consciously orient myself to life this way at all (it probably comes out when I'm totally annoyed/disturbed by something - incredibly ego dystonic).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Very interesting. I *heavily* repress this mentality (especially reasoning from a subjective standpoint in terms of sensation, like thinking that because something leaves so-and-so impression on me, I can conclude "blah, blah..." objective facts). I can't say I consciously orient myself to life this way at all (it probably comes out when I'm totally annoyed/disturbed by something - incredibly ego dystonic).


I am not sure a dominant or auxiliary Si type would approach it the same way though, although I think those types tend to explore the Si experience from within using Ne. I think an dom or aux Si user would probably be more likely to focus on the experience of the chair and what it means to them rather than starting to immediately bounce off to other things that I think Ne aux and dom types do.
@niss maybe can explain better.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@celticstained



> But because intuition excludes the cooperation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innovation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images.





> The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order. Impulsiveness and unrestraint are the characters of this sensation, combined with an extraordinary dependence upon the sense impression. *This latter quality is a compensation to the thin upper air of the conscious attitude, giving it a certain weight, so that complete 'sublimation' is prevented.* But if, through a forced exaggeration of the conscious attitude, a complete subordination to the inner perception should develop, the unconscious becomes an opposition, giving rise to compulsive sensations whose excessive dependence upon the object is in frank conflict with the conscious attitude.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> In my previous posts, I was attempting to explain why Ni doesn't work with Se data. So I wasn't actually discussing a person's entire perception process, only the functions and how they place importance on opposite portions of perception. When Ni is perceiving, Se and it's contents are repressed.


Ok I am a bit confused now,
Are you relating this post as to Ni separate by itself or differentiated or something. Even then it can be a 50-50 relying on Se data that previously was embarked on Ni. I am more so confused as you previously was starting , or it seemed, to point towards the Ni working Se data in someway. Now you say it doesn't?!
Maybe explain more by what you was say saying at the end "When Ni is perceiving, Se and it's contents are repressed." as in relation I suppose to the whole comment together.
To add onto this and sorry if it totally off on what you are getting at. Ni when it is truly perceiving true doesn't entirely rely on Se. In situations such as Se is used, which is actually quit a lot, our Ni is somewhat objective for a moment during that moment Ni turns its subjectively. Depends on the situation a lot of times completely forgetting the actual Se perception, usually when not focused on the actual Se "object" for instance and Ni is given its preference. The user can become absent minded in a way towards the Se objective "object" even forgetting what the user was suppose to do or went to the room for. This is an example of something from Se catching the users eye, which leads to turning the Se object into some kind of a symbolism subjectively which can be a tad more direct with less symbolism depends on the users strength in other functions or not just Ni running wild.
In situations where Se is more focused on, Ni can and will be in the background. Where Ni can be slightly more focused or pinpointed so to say. Like when an INFJ is speaking to someone lets say in emotional turmoil or is talking to the INFJ about something. With two extraverted functions in play Fe-Se, Ni is taking all of this in deciphering all of this "objective" data, we can't forget about Ti also, Just as focused as the Fe-Se is outwardly inwards Ni-Ti is just as focused. Of course this is one who has a well balanced functions. In which I am getting off subject slightly...


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

myjazz said:


> Ok I am a bit confused now,
> Are you relating this post as to Ni separate by itself or differentiated or something. Even then it can be a 50-50 relying on Se data that previously was embarked on Ni. I am more so confused as you previously was starting , or it seemed, to point towards the Ni working Se data in someway. Now you say it doesn't?!
> Maybe explain more by what you was say saying at the end "When Ni is perceiving, Se and it's contents are repressed." as in relation I suppose to the whole comment together.
> To add onto this and sorry if it totally off on what you are getting at. Ni when it is truly perceiving true doesn't entirely rely on Se. In situations such as Se is used, which is actually quit a lot, our Ni is somewhat objective for a moment during that moment Ni turns its subjectively. Depends on the situation a lot of times completely forgetting the actual Se perception, usually when not focused on the actual Se "object" for instance and Ni is given its preference. The user can become absent minded in a way towards the Se objective "object" even forgetting what the user was suppose to do or went to the room for. This is an example of something from Se catching the users eye, which leads to turning the Se object into some kind of a symbolism subjectively which can be a tad more direct with less symbolism depends on the users strength in other functions or not just Ni running wild.
> In situations where Se is more focused on, Ni can and will be in the background. Where Ni can be slightly more focused or pinpointed so to say. Like when an INFJ is speaking to someone lets say in emotional turmoil or is talking to the INFJ about something. With two extraverted functions in play Fe-Se, Ni is taking all of this in deciphering all of this "objective" data, we can't forget about Ti also, Just as focused as the Fe-Se is outwardly inwards Ni-Ti is just as focused. Of course this is one who has a well balanced functions. In which I am getting off subject slightly...


Maybe I didn't express it very clearly, basically, what I've been trying to say is that Se places the highest importance on the objective and sensory aspects of perception and Ni places highest importance on the subjective and unconscious aspects of perception. 

Se, Si, Ne and Ni all perceive external data, it doesn't have to go through S to get to N. The preferred perceiving function is not determined by what being perceived, but by the factors of perception given the highest value. If the importance isn't placed on the objective and the sensory, then it's not Se.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I am not sure a dominant or auxiliary Si type would approach it the same way though, although I think those types tend to explore the Si experience from within using Ne. I think an dom or aux Si user would probably be more likely to focus on the experience of the chair and what it means to them rather than starting to immediately bounce off to other things that I think Ne aux and dom types do.
> @_niss_ maybe can explain better.


I can see introverts who use Si generally approaching it the same way, perhaps. As a dominant, it's probably going to relate to their world views and such more than in any other position. I'm an Ni dom, so Si is extremely foreign to me (it's that one function I tend to notice in people IRL, but I almost can't coherently describe their reasoning at all - it just looks kind of quirky to me).


----------

