# Ne vs. Ni



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Here is my confusion. Given Jung's basic paradigm:
> 
> Sensation (i.e. sense perception) tells us that something exists; *thinking tells you what it is*; feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not; and *intuition tells you whence it comes and where it is going.*
> 
> ...


Ni also relates conceptual similarities in objects which are (to the senses) dissimilar or unrelated. It seeks for similarities in structure, or in the relations of sets of objects one to another (topology, as it were). It is able to (once it has been "primed" on a situation) extrapolate *or* interpolate with equal facility.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

conundrum94 said:


> Only if the text is blue.


Its easier on the eyes, my favorite color, and I can pick it out quickly.


----------



## Fischer (Aug 16, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Its easier on the eyes, my favorite color, and I can pick it out quickly.


You don't have to explain yourself but now that you have even more rad.


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Why don't you read the work that spawned your very question:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l6Kf_t1VFRUORUnKOFYbuA5JkSq2Z1irLVFlkTGi55E/edit#


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Cetanu said:


> Why don't you read the work that spawned your very question:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l6Kf_t1VFRUORUnKOFYbuA5JkSq2Z1irLVFlkTGi55E/edit#


Or here:

Psychological Types - Wikisocion

Or read the full 1923 copy of the book here:

Psychological Types, by C.G. Jung

:wink:


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

BigApplePi said:


> I was thinking along those lines on my way home this afternoon. Considering concepts I have certain favorites which others may not take to or they may take to. Feel free to ignore them if you think I'm crazy, lol.
> 
> Static and dynamic are useful; inside and outside world is useful; whole and parts are useful. Keeping those in mind, we can turn to Ne versus Ni or first N alone. And not to forget S = sensation which bounds or provides limits for N.
> 
> ...


There's a problem though perception functions don't apply judgement, and vice versa. Here's some quotes:



> Thinking and feeling are rational functions in so far as they are decisively influenced by the motive of reflection. They attain their fullest significance when in fullest possible accord with the laws of reason. The irrational functions, on the contrary, are such as aim at pure perception, e.g. intuition and sensation; because, as far as possible, they are forced to dispense with the rational (which pre-supposes the exclusion of everything that is outside reason) in order to be able to reach the most complete perception of the whole course of events.





> Intuition maintains a compensatory function to sensation, *and, like sensation, it is the maternal soil from which thinking and feeling are developed in the form of rational functions.* Intuition is an irrational function, notwithstanding the fact that many intuitions *may subsequently* be split up into their component elements, *whereby their origin and appearance can also be made to harmonize with the laws of reason*. Everyone whose general attitude is orientated by the principle of intuition, i.e. perception by way of the unconscious, belongs to the intuitive type





> Primarily; therefore, sensation is sense-perception, i.e. perception transmitted via the sense organs and 'bodily senses' (kinaesthetic, vaso-motor sensation, etc.). On the one hand, it is an element of presentation, since it transmits to the presenting function the perceived image of the outer object; on the other hand, it is an element of feeling, because through the perception of bodily changes it lends the character of affect to feeling, (v. Affect). Because sensation transmits physical changes to consciousness, it also represents the physiological impulse. *But it is not identical with it, since it is merely a perceptive function*.





> In so far as sensation is an elementary phenomenon, it is something absolutely given, something that, in contrast to thinking and feeling, is not subject to the laws of reason. I therefore term it an irrational (q.v.) function, *although reason contrives to assimilate a great number of sensations into rational associations*.





> I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment *but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment.*


There's many more quotes but the point is perception is pure absolute perception, anything that gives a judgement of any kind is a judgement/rational function. Your example of N seeing war as evil is a judgement, its not a perception to attribute a value/judgement to anything. Intuition instead would perceive war through objective possibilities or ideational associations. Neither Ni nor Ne perceives a situation according to a judgement, they instead absolutely, and just simply, perceive. The point is perception never judges nor makes a choice (judgement in action), it is solely consumed by perception.

Also to note I have always though the forest from the trees analogy is such a bad concept to try to grasp the perception functions. Understand that in the scenario there is a forest that contains trees which makes it up as a whole, but if we single out any one tree or group of trees from the forest then we are inevitably abstracting. This is a situation that describes introversion in contrast to extraversion. Extraversion focuses on the whole object (forest) while Introversion abstracts a portion of the object (Trees).


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> There's many more quotes but the point is perception is pure absolute perception, anything that gives a judgement of any kind is a judgement/rational function. Your example of N seeing war as evil is a judgement, its not a perception to attribute a value/judgement to anything. Intuition instead would perceive war through objective possibilities or ideational associations. Neither Ni nor Ne perceives a situation according to a judgement, they instead absolutely, and just simply, perceive. The point is perception never judges nor makes a choice (judgement in action), it is solely consumed by perception.


I'm starting to wonder whether Ni/Ne dom can adequately describe Ni/Ne aux, and vice-versa. :/


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Verity3 said:


> I'm starting to wonder whether Ni/Ne dom can adequately describe Ni/Ne aux, and vice-versa. :/


You can describe them if you follow the rules of their nature. Intuition dominate is focused on either extrapolating all present objective possibilities, or synthesizing possibilities that pertain to the self into ideational associations. Intuition aux uses intuition to either express their introverted judgements through external possibilities, or to synthesize a set of possibilities that pertain to the self in order create a perception that creates a direction of which aligns with the goals of dominant extraverted judgement (implementation).


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> You can describe them if you follow the rules of their nature. Intuition dominate is focused on either extrapolating all present objective possibilities, or synthesizing possibilities that pertain to the self into ideational associations. Intuition aux uses intuition to either express their introverted judgements through external possibilities, or to synthesize a set of possibilities that pertain to the self in order create a perception that creates a direction of which aligns with the goals of dominant extraverted judgement (implementation).


OH. 

So in the case of intuition dominate... then what does aux extraverted judgment do?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Verity3 said:


> OH.
> 
> So in the case of intuition dominate... then what does aux extraverted judgment do?


The Introverted intuitive uses their extraverted judgement to implement their vision on to the external. While the extraverted judger uses introverted intuition to create a direction that is effective for the goals of extraverted judgement. For the introverted Intuitive dom, intuition is the area of focus that is implemented through extraverted judgement. For the extraverted judgement dom, Judgement in the external world is the area of focus that utilizes introverted intuition to visualize the direction in which their external judgements are most effective. Ni doms use Je as their slave, while Je doms use Ni as theirs. This also explains the difference between projection and introjection. 

Extraverted intuition (dom), on the other hand, extrapolates all present objective possibilities and then applies introverted judgements to the the objective possibilities that they are visualizing. Introverted Judgment (dom), has an internal framework that it expresses through extraverting objective possibilities that pertain to those judgements. Ne doms use Ji to categorize/rationalize/reason their visions, while Ji doms use Ne to visualize the implications of their internal framework through objective possibilities. This is the difference between expressing the internal system through external possibilities (Ji/Ne) and internally rationalizing external possibilities (Ne/Ji). Whereas the former uses visions to express their judgements, while the latter uses judgement to rationalize their visions.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

ruskiix said:


> My problem with descriptions like this is that the whole/truth is so reliant on connections and dynamic patterns that it doesn't help someone with Ni differentiate the two. Ni learns patterns and rhythms to identify details in something, though--you learn them in as many contexts as possible so that you can identify them more quickly to sense deeper meaning in individual subjects. While for Ne, just constantly processing new patterns is the end goal, I think.
> 
> 
> I think it shows a bit in sense of humor. Ni seems to absolutely love absurdity in details, while Ne loves absurdity in outcomes. Ne seems to enjoy slapstick more, while Ni loves nonsense.



I think perhaps I was being too broad. Perhaps to the point it lost its meaning?

I think however the patterns you speak of a Ni learning/using tends to be more in the subconscious. This is my understanding so far, it could be wrong but feel free (or anyone else) to correct anything I may have muddled up 

I think Ni sees the way we perceive things, how we understand what we see and the assumptions we make.
When you look at men and women and how they have been depicted through history (through art, poetry, society), the man often symbolized strength and the woman symbolized weakness. Through growing up we build our own biases that may be a reflection of the teaching of society we pick up subconsciously. We may not even be aware of them. We may believe men and women are equals, but our subconscious will colour this view and may taint it with the archetypes of what a man is and a woman is.

The same can be said for racism. Someone may consciously believe they are not racist, yet they subconsciously are. They may vigorously state they are not and truly believe this, however they may subconsciously act differently through their body language. This can even be as subtle as leaning away from someone of a different race compared to leaning towards someone of the same race.

Now I think Ni taps into these archetypes, and through them builds internal patterns. I think it manipulate this. Why not look at the symbolic qualities of a woman (nurturing, emotional, soft) not as a weakness, but as strength, or perhaps they are just different. Perhaps there is a greater meaning that encompasses both a man and a woman. Now this is perhaps where truth comes into it. It is finding the symbolic perspective to take to best represent the object. This is very different to Ne. Ne sees the object in context to other objects, how they relate to one another. It may even change or transform objects to see how this relationship can be changed. Ni does not do this, the object always remains the same (which is why Ni can find it difficult to relate objects to other objects). What's changing is the the way the individual views it, it is relating the object to it's own point of view.

It is also interesting how both Ne and Ni can predict future events (that as an N thing) however they are both very different.

When certain events happen in the world Ni observes how close they fit an archetype in the subconscious, and when there is a similarity Ni predicts what will happen next. With more experience in the world, the better this pattern recognition becomes. The Ni user is unaware of this process (ever heard of the phrase 'thinking without thinking'?) and only become aware of the end product, that is a symbolic image, or a gut feeling, maybe even a phrase or music in the mind. From this there is a knowing of what is to happen, or what the answer is, yet how they came to the answer is unknown.

Ne is different. It knows where the information comes from. It pulls information together, from current or past events and experiences, and sees patterns between this information. It also spends time manipulating the information, changing variables to see how this dynamic then changes. This is where the 'what if' comes in. Ne from this generates many possibilities. As events proceed certain things will happen, this narrows down which possibilities are likely to be correct, and eventually one will have the answer.

I hope this was a clearer distinction.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I'm having trouble with this thread. I keep reading and seeing contradictions and have to throw them out. Not enough congealed here for me. I would like a firm (logical, not intuitive) foundation else how can one talk about Ni and Ne? *I would like one or more specific examples of Ni and Ne. *Would you have some of yours and can you name which it is: Ni or Ne?

First will you buy this in the way of definition?

Intuition (N) = the immediate perception of an entity or idea. Jung says this and it seems okay to me. It is non-rational as is sensation. It is a perception, like sensation. Things are seen whole, all a once.

"Through intuition anyone content is presented as a complete whole, without our being able to explain or discover in what way this content has been arrived at Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, irrespective of the nature of its contents." - Jung
Psychological Types - Wikisocion

Here is an Ni/Ne clue, but I'm not ready:
"_Concrete_ and _abstract_ forms of intuition may be distinguished according to the degree of participation on the part of sensation. Concrete intuition carries perceptions which are concerned with the actuality of things, while abstract intuition transmits the perceptions of ideational associations. Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it follows directly from the given circumstances; whereas abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, necessitates a certain element of direction, an act of will or a purpose." - Jung

Is "This is summer" intuition as *RunForCover07* presented? If so, is it Ne because one gets a lot of external impressions grasps them whole and calls it, "summer"? Forget his Ni example. I don't get it and it's not clear enough.

How about "There are seasons"? Is seasons Ni because it is built on four abstract (subjective internal) ideas or it that a bad example?

What about seeing a forest from a clump of trees? Is forest ambiguous because it could be a sensation? Or if one sees trees as sensation and suddenly sees they form a forest as a concept, then that is Ne? Or what if one can't tell a bush from a tree and sees a cluster of growth as some blob and calls the whole gathering a forest? Is that Ni because it's based on an idea of blobs? If that doesn't work, what about a forest of forests? Have we reached Ni yet?

What are better Ni examples? How about if we see lots of trouble in the world, conflicts and oppression. One can form the idea war is in the air. Is this "war" concept Ni?


----------



## wums (Nov 25, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> I'm having trouble with this thread. I keep reading and seeing contradictions and have to throw them out. Not enough congealed here. I would like a firm (logical, not intuitive) foundation else how can one talk about Ni and Ne? *I would like one or more specific examples of Ni and Ne. *Would you have some of yours and can you name which it is: Ni or Ne?


Ni synthesizes a lot of information into one single conclusion, Ne abstracts a single concept into many different possibilities.

For a logical perspective, you have to view functions as pairs, not as lone entities. Ni-Se and Si-Ne. So a Ni user takes in lots of information (Se) and connects it all to achieve a single intuitive sense of what is true. The conclusion is only as true as the comprehensiveness of the information that formed it of course. 

Whereas Ne works with Si, so a Ne user has various procedural knowledge that is interconnected, which allows Ne to apply diverse methodologies to a novel problem. 

More Se input = better Ni conclusion, more stored Si information = more creative material for Ne.

So a Ni user sees a forest in a clump of trees, a Ne user sees all the things one can do with, in and around trees or a clump of trees. Ti for example can structure concepts from those Ne explorations but Ne itself is never conclusive.

War is in the air... I suppose, but I'm a little picky about how you worded it. Ni is "I see a gun leaning up against a building, too many planes flying overhead, and last Tuesday the president's demeanor was strange. Maybe war is in the air." Ni can form a tentative conclusion, like, an overall suspicion, but the point is it takes lots of different information and reduces it to a single meaning, just, a knowledge of the ways that information can be related, which is then able to be evaluated for viability by thinking functions. 

Hope that helps!


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

wums said:


> Hope that helps!


Yes that helps. I'm still after more clear definitions of Ni, Ne and also Se, Si to distinguish. Much of what I read are derivations or outcomes of these functions. It is fine to look at those and be pleased they are what Ni, etc can do. Yet to clinch all this definitively I would like more clear definitions. That is why I am sorely tempted to use definitions of my own even if they may not please everyone. Even the great Carl Jung whom I now have to admire comes close but does not clinch what I'm after unless I'm misreading. Maybe I'm chasing windmills, but I haven't given up yet, lol. 

I'll try some definitions of those four later. They all belong to perception so we can think of them as immediate in apprehension. 

Added: thinking and feeling are said to be rational functions. I assume that is because there are steps in a process to arrive at thinking and feeling. Sensation may be clearly immediate, but intuition is also even though experience goes on before it happens. What happens leading up to an intuitive experience is not intuition but I assume can be a combo of some or all of the other three.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Its best to focus on key terms that separate them in every respect.

Ne:



> Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because this alone can give the appearance of a full life, *so intuition tries to apprehend the widest range of possibilities, since only through envisioning possibilities is intuition fully satisfied.* It seeks to discover what *possibilities the objective situation holds in store;* hence, as a subordinate function (i.e., when not in the position of priority), it is the *auxiliary that automatically comes into play when no other function can find a way out of a hopelessly blocked situation*. When it is the dominant function, *every ordinary situation in life seems like a locked room which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking fresh outlets and new possibilities in external life*. In a very short time *every existing situation becomes a prison* for the intuitive, a chain that has to be broken. For a time objects appear to have an exaggerated value, if they should serve to bring about a solution, a deliverance, or lead to the discovery of a new possibility. Yet no sooner have they served their purpose as stepping-stones or bridges than they lose their value altogether and are discarded as burdensome appendages. Facts are acknowledged only if they open new possibilities of advancing beyond them and delivering the individual from their power. *Nascent possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed*.


Ni:



> .Introverted intuition is *directed to the inner object,* a term that might justly be applied to the contents of the unconscious. *The relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, though their reality is not physical but psychic.* They appear to intuitive perception as *subjective images* of things which, *though not to be met with in the outside world*, constitute the contents of the unconscious, and of the collective unconscious in particular. These contents per se are naturally not accessible to experience, a quality they have in common with external objects. For just as external objects correspond only relatively to our perception of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner objects are also relative— products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function.





> .Sensation is arrested by the peculiar nature of this disturbance of innervation, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its course, how it arose and how it passed, but not advancing beyond that to its content, to the thing that caused the disturbance. Intuition, on the other hand, *receives from sensation only the impetus to its own immediate activity*; it peers behind the scenes, *quickly perceiving the inner image *that gave rise to this particular form of expression— the attack of vertigo. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; *it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds, and finally fades*.





> In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation registers external objects. For intuition, therefore, unconscious images acquire the dignity of things. But, *because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains little or no knowledge of the disturbances of innervation or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images.* The images appear as though detached from the subject, as though *existing in themselves without any relation to him*. Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, *the introverted intuitive, if attacked by vertigo, would never imagine that the image he perceived might in some way refer to himself*. To a judging type this naturally seems almost inconceivable, but it is none the less a fact which I have often come across in my dealings with intuitives.


Ne vs Ni:



> The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive to external objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to inner objects. *Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new possibilities, which he pursues with equal unconcern for his own welfare and for that of others*, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations and tearing down what has just been built in his everlasting search for change, *so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between them and himself*. Just as the world of appearances can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, the world of inner images is never a moral problem for the intuitive. For both of them it is an aesthetic problem, a matter of perception, a “sensation.” Because of this, the introverted intuitive has little consciousness of his own bodily existence or of its effect on others.


One wants to explore objective possibilities by focusing on the possibilities that an object has to offer through perceiving the objects potential, the other wants to explore the nature of Archetypal patterns through images of the unconscious that is not to be met with in the objective world but was triggered by the effect that an object has released within them, the individual.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> Ne:


 Here is a definition of Ne independent of any personality and therefore stack position: Ne = an immediate apprehension of a whole in the external world. <-- do you accept this? If you don't, I can't proceed.


> Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because this alone can give the appearance of a full life, *so intuition tries to apprehend the widest range of possibilities, since only through envisioning possibilities is intuition fully satisfied.* It seeks to discover what *possibilities the objective situation holds in store;* hence, as a subordinate function (i.e., when not in the position of priority), it is the *auxiliary that automatically comes into play when no other function can find a way out of a hopelessly blocked situation*.


Above is a conclusion, not a definition. I suppose it happens because one is trying to grasp the whole and in perceiving the situation leaves nothing out in its perception. If in its auxiliary capacity another CF (cognitive function) concludes something is left out, Ne will envelop more perception.



> When it is the dominant function, *every ordinary situation in life seems like a locked room which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking fresh outlets and new possibilities in external life*. In a very short time *every existing situation becomes a prison* for the intuitive, a chain that has to be broken. For a time objects appear to have an exaggerated value, if they should serve to bring about a solution, a deliverance, or lead to the discovery of a new possibility. Yet no sooner have they served their purpose as stepping-stones or bridges than they lose their value altogether and are discarded as burdensome appendages. Facts are acknowledged only if they open new possibilities of advancing beyond them and delivering the individual from their power. *Nascent possibilities are compelling motives from which intuition cannot escape and to which all else must be sacrificed*.


This is not a definition either. It sounds like another attempt to grasp the whole, discarding unnecessaries and including the missing except since it is dominant with more emphasis.

Note that since only the dominant and auxiliary is covered above, we must add Ne in the tertiary position which I suspect will act only within the confines of the logic of the dominant logic function. In the inferior position it would act within the confines of the dominant perceptive function, that is Si.



> Ni:


Ni = an immediate apprehension of a whole in the internal (mind) world.



> Introverted intuition is *directed to the inner object,* a term that might justly be applied to the contents of the unconscious. *The relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, though their reality is not physical but psychic.* They appear to intuitive perception as *subjective images* of things which, *though not to be met with in the outside world*, constitute the contents of the unconscious, and of the collective unconscious in particular. These contents per se are naturally not accessible to experience, a quality they have in common with external objects. For just as external objects correspond only relatively to our perception of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner objects are also relative— products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function.


Not sure if this is saying Ni perceives consciously the unconscious only or both conscious and unconscious. I guess it doesn't matter. I'll take both.



> .Sensation is arrested by the peculiar nature of this disturbance of innervation, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its course, how it arose and how it passed, but not advancing beyond that to its content, to the thing that caused the disturbance. Intuition, on the other hand, *receives from sensation only the impetus to its own immediate activity*; it peers behind the scenes, *quickly perceiving the inner image *that gave rise to this particular form of expression— the attack of vertigo. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; *it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds, and finally fades*.


I'm having trouble understanding this paragraph. Is it saying intuition is so preoccupied with seeing the whole (I know I'm repeating that), it shuts out sensation which is a particular? If so, I'll buy that.



> In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation registers external objects. For intuition, therefore, unconscious images acquire the dignity of things. But, *because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains little or no knowledge of the disturbances of innervation or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images.* The images appear as though detached from the subject, as though *existing in themselves without any relation to him*. Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, *the introverted intuitive, if attacked by vertigo, would never imagine that the image he perceived might in some way refer to himself*. To a judging type this naturally seems almost inconceivable, but it is none the less a fact which I have often come across in my dealings with intuitives.


This must be pure intuition. Fair enough. This vertigo is experienced as Se, not Si. Is that correct?




> Ne vs Ni:





> The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive to external objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to inner objects. *Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new possibilities, which he pursues with equal unconcern for his own welfare and for that of others*, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations and tearing down what has just been built in his everlasting search for change, *so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between them and himself*. Just as the world of appearances can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, the world of inner images is never a moral problem for the intuitive. For both of them it is an aesthetic problem, a matter of perception, a “sensation.” Because of this, the introverted intuitive has little consciousness of his own bodily existence or of its effect on others.


I guess I can buy this. There are opposites in the way stated. If anything, can we say that there is a reason for Ne to block Se and Ni to block Si. <-- did I say that correctly? The reason is looking at and accepting the parts defeats the value of the whole. One can't look at any whole and parts at the same time. Parts are the enemy of the whole. To the intuitive, sensation breaks the whole. If one drives to see the whole on the same side of the inside/outside fence, they can't see the parts. The other side of the fence is different. Seeing the whole can alternate with viewing on the other side of the fence. That means Ne can alternative with Si and Ni can alternate with Se, each acting as supplementary partners. <-- note that to proceed with any more theory I must have this correct. Is it?




> One wants to explore objective possibilities by focusing on the possibilities that an object has to offer through perceiving the objects potential, the other wants to explore the nature of Archetypal patterns through images of the unconscious that is not to be with in the objective world but was triggered by the effect that an object has released within them, the individual.


Ne is interested in the objective world; Ni is interested in the subjective one.


----------



## GreyJedi (Dec 8, 2014)

I think this video might help:


----------



## Gurpy (Aug 8, 2014)

Ne is seeing possibilities

Ni is getting epiphanies


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

GreyJedi said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good video. He did well on Ne, but what about Ni? While I claim Ne is intuition about the external world, he called it, "in the moment." While I call Ni intuition about the internal world, he called it, "time based." I don't get it. These can't be the same, can they? I'm okay with his definition if it works. Does it? I could guess Ne about the external world is space based, thus having no room for time. I'll buy that. But Ni? Maybe we can think there is no room ... no space for the internal mind so there is far more freedom for time. Could that be the reason for calling Ni, "time based"?

Let's see if this is flawed. What if my Ne tries to be about time? Ah ha. That fails because I can look at only one outside picture at a time. Ne is space based. Or rather space implied. 

How about Ni and space? This is intuition in the mind. Well I'm weak in Ni so help on Ni above and beyond that video would come in handy here. *CALLING for NI people ...* . Can Ni operate in space as opposed to time? Help!
===========================



Gurpy said:


> Ne is seeing possibilities
> 
> Ni is getting epiphanies


That seems true. However those are ramifications or concluding outcomes, not foundations. Ni is a bit of a mystery to me. I can see ideas floating around inside my head, but where would I depart from that? Maybe I don't see what is right in front of my face! The past sucks and I'm looks for a future reconciliation!


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

BigApplePi said:


> Here is a definition of Ne independent of any personality and therefore stack position: Ne = an immediate apprehension of a whole in the external world. <-- do you accept this? If you don't, I can't proceed.


Accepted



> Above is a conclusion, not a definition. I suppose it happens because one is trying to grasp the whole and in perceiving the situation leaves nothing out in its perception. If in its auxiliary capacity another CF (cognitive function) concludes something is left out, Ne will envelop more perception.
> 
> This is not a definition either. It sounds like another attempt to grasp the whole, discarding unnecessaries and including the missing except since it is dominant with more emphasis.


Both "conclusions" are properties of the definition, which is the act of defining what a thing is. These descriptions of the functions is Jung defining what the process is. Ne in the auxiliary and below only works to help the individual in helplessly blocked situations, situations that no other function can handle.



> Note that since only the dominant and auxiliary is covered above, we must add Ne in the tertiary position which I suspect will act only within the confines of the logic of the dominant logic function. In the inferior position it would act within the confines of the dominant perceptive function, that is Si.


Answered above.



> Ni = an immediate apprehension of a whole in the internal (mind) world.


Through images that represent archetypes



> Not sure if this is saying Ni perceives consciously the unconscious only or both conscious and unconscious. I guess it doesn't matter. I'll take both.


Intuition is the function of the unconscious, both Ne and Ni, Ne unconsciously perceives the external world, Ni unconsciously perceives the inner world. Both functions are directed by the unconscious in unconscious ways. Ne unconsciously perceives the external objects, Ni unconsciously perceives the objects released from an object into the subject (individual), the inner object.



> I'm having trouble understanding this paragraph. Is it saying intuition is so preoccupied with seeing the whole (I know I'm repeating that), it shuts out sensation which is a particular? If so, I'll buy that.


Hmm I wouldn't say I agree with this. Ne and Se perceive the whole, but one perceives the whole actuality (Se), while the other perceives the whole potentiality (Ne). Ni and Si are abstracting functions, they abstract either a particular sensation or a particular intuition from objects and store it within themselves. Look below for Jungs input:



> ABSTRACTION, as the word itself indicates, *is the drawing out or singling out of a content (a meaning, a general characteristic, etc.) from a context made up of other elements whose combination into a whole is something unique or individual and therefore cannot be compared with anything else.* Singularity, uniqueness, and incomparability are obstacles to cognition; hence the other elements associated with a content that is felt to be the essential one are bound to appear irrelevant. [677] *Abstraction, therefore, is a form of mental activity that frees this content from its association with the irrelevant elements by distinguishing it from them or, in other words, differentiating it* (v. Differentiation). In its wider sense, everything is abstract that is separated from its association with elements that are felt to have no relevance to its meaning.


All introverted functions are abstracting functions.





> This must be pure intuition. Fair enough. This vertigo is experienced as Se, not Si. Is that correct?


It could be applied to both except for the part that talks directly about introverted intuition, but the quote is predominately about introverted intuition and it excluding any cooperation with Se.



> I guess I can buy this. There are opposites in the way stated. If anything, can we say that there is a reason for Ne to block Se and Ni to block Si. <-- did I say that correctly? The reason is looking at and accepting the parts defeats the value of the whole. One can't look at any whole and parts at the same time. Parts are the enemy of the whole. To the intuitive, sensation breaks the whole. If one drives to see the whole on the same side of the inside/outside fence, they can't see the parts. The other side of the fence is different. Seeing the whole can alternate with viewing on the other side of the fence. That means Ne can alternative with Si and Ni can alternate with Se, each acting as supplementary partners. <-- note that to proceed with any more theory I must have this correct. Is it?


Answered above, refer to abstraction. Introverted functions abstract parts of the whole, extraverted functions take in the whole.



> Ne is interested in the objective world; Ni is interested in the subjective one.


Ne is interested in the potential of the objective world, Ni is interested in the archetypes in the subjective one.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> I wonder what makes Ne = space and Ni = time? The quote is about Intuition in general, could it not apply to both?


I believe I was puzzling about that earlier today. The space and time thing are deductions, not inherent in Ne or Ni ... or so it would seem. In the outer Ne world one only sees space. It's grounded in a subconscious Se apprehension. As soon as one tries to leave the present, one can only travel in time in one's head. That's not real in the Ne world. In the inner Ni world one imagines within the mind reflecting over unconscious Si memories and anticipations. That is time travel. There is no space in the mind. It's only you. 

The above is theory. People would have to check this out for consistency with Jung, other writers, and the posters at this Cafe for verification. Find out if there are inconsistencies. Try and find if there is an example where this doesn't work. If you can find an *Ne Ni in one example* there would no longer be this Ne Ni split. Find an ISTJ or another critic to look into it.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@*Shadow Logic.*


Shadow Logic said:


> I always think people are talking out of their ass when they attribute Ne to space and Ni to time, there is no where to allude that Ni works only in time and Ne works only in space, intuition perceives possibilities, a possibility is time and space based.


Please supply an example where Ne operates in time and/or Ni operates in space ... in the moment of intuition, that is. One example will kill a general theory because it provides a counter-example to the supposed generality.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

BigApplePi said:


> @*Shadow Logic.*
> Please supply an example where Ne operates in time and/or Ni operates in space ... in the moment of intuition, that is. One example will kill a general theory because it provides a counter-example to the supposed generality.


Ne can see all future possibilities. Future is time based, seeing the possibilities of a thing is space based.

And for Ni:



> so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, *chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious*, without establishing any connection between them and himself.


Possibilities are space based.



> *It can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as events which later actually do happen. Its prophetic foresight is explained by its relation to the archetypes, *which represent the laws governing the course of all experienceable things.


Foresight is time based.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Key board problem ... ignore since I can't delete.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

BigApplePi said:


> I read down further and want to say this about myself. I am compelled to do my own thinking. Taking others for granted is no fun for me. I respect Jung for founding


Understood, but in order to understand the system that Jung perceived, as in order to see the thing that Jung perceived, you would need to abide by the definitions that Jung set out to define. Its one thing to learn a subject and then think about the implications, its another to ignore the subject to redefine things that you lack the understanding in. If you learned physics wouldn't you learn the subject, and the think about what you just took in, or would you just redefine all the properties of physics just for the sake of it, given that you are not taking the time to understand the definitions that already are? If you learned about the sun would you say that hydrogen fusion doesn't exist or would you learn about the process of hydrogen fusion? In any subject you would first learn the properties then think upon them in order to fully comprehend the subject, or else you risk misunderstanding the subject altogether.


----------



## GreyJedi (Dec 8, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> I thought I'd jump in here. I like the classifications.What is subjective and objective logic? Did you mean the F is using objective logic? (You said you don't have Fe.)
> .
> .
> .
> ...


Subjective meaning that there is some kind of a bias whereas objective is when you try to decide what to do based on raw information. Fi and Ti users will be hard to tell apart because of how close their cognitive function operate. Let's say both are playing chess.

Ti: Taking over that pawn with my knight, I can then open a space to secure a check. My opponent will then be forced to a fork in the road if he were to take my knight or just move his king. If he doesn't take my knight then for sure I am going to take the queen. If he were to take my knight then a checkmate a rook will be in place to double check both the queen and the king. I do have another plan but this plan, based on what I can deduce, is more comprehensive and the benefits will be larger.
Fi: I feel like I should take that pawn with my knight. If I do that, then it seems like I can open him up and check him. But then, there are two possibilities that I am considering... and it seems like the first option will yield better results because from my understanding, I have the possibility to double check him if he were to take my knight.

As stated above, F uses subjective logic... it's what stems from inside. Kind of like a bias. Ti "analyzes" data while Fi "feels" what will be the right course of action.

For the INFJs... I can't really speak for them either. Perhaps an INFJ can explain how their Fe works in that kind of situation.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> Quite a post. Branching out all over the place. Makes me want to scream bloody murder and want to pull things together so I can get hold of something orderly in my mind that would be able to cover everything where no one would want to object ... a task apparently beyond anyone's undertaking let alone mine.


No one has been able to agree on a single definition of Ni because there's still too much unknown about the human mind. How does a cognitive function work in the brain? What causes introversion and extraversion from a neurological standpoint? What's energy or libido? Where and how do the functions of sensation, thinking and intuition occur in the brain? Dario Nardi attempt to answer some of these questions, but even his study isn't perfect. He did brain scans with a small group of students and found that some patterns occur among people who have the same best fit type. But, did everyone in that study fall into one of the 16 types or just the majority? Also, the questions they may have been asked may have influenced the results because they represent simulated reality, not how humans actually deal with real life. Also, Nardi makes no mention of the collective unconscious--what it is, how it works in the brain or how it relates to type. Yet, that's a central idea to Jung's work. So, what does that mean about the original theory? How does it need to be altered? How does it change our definition of Ni or introversion all together?

It's these kinds of question that remain unanswered and prevent us from knowing, factually, what any cognitive function is.

At this point, all anyone can do is look at the hypotheses of each author and build their personal opinions from there. Read, Jung and decide whether you agree or disagree. Next, read Lenore Thomson and decide your opinion. Do the same for all the sources on type and refine your own definition of Ni or any other function. Ultimately, however, all the sources and your personal opinions are just based on observations and speculations, but not based on quantifiable proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you can use to make predictions about behavior; in other words, it's not science. 



BigApplePi said:


> Technically disagree. *Ni at its foundation is the immediate apprehension of a whole by a mind.* This is not done for nothing. There is a history and there is a purpose.


That's interesting, but where are you getting this definition? Did you deduce it yourself? If so, that's nice but it doesn't mean that it's correct because you're not basing things on any facts. Ultimately, no one has an empirical evidence of type -- not even Jung. Jung's hypothesis is not scientific. Other people who have written about type have written their own hypothesis, but they still remain untested. Therefore, all existing definitions of type are equally valid or invalid hypotheses (including yours). 

That being said, please clarify what you mean by "a whole." A whole what? In English, "whole" is not a noun, so it can't be the direct object of a verb. In other words, "a whole" cannot be apprehended. Also clarify which part of the mind: the unconscious, the conscious, something else? 



BigApplePi said:


> No. I've defined it. Defining Ni types? If a personality does this regularly and it is distinguishable from 15 others, we have a type. If we can't do that, we don't have a type.


No, you have defined your opinion. Your hypothesis. Just like Jung defined his hypothesis. But, ultimately, type is not objective or factual. Type may not exist at all. Even your assertion that, "If a personality does this regularly and it is distinguishable from 15 others, we have a type" is contestable. For example, Jung does not suss out 16 personality types, so why should we? That's a MBTI interpretation. And even then, how exactly is does the relationship between an auxiliary function and a dominant function work? Will Feeling change the way Ni operates when compared to auxiliary Thinking? If, so then what's regular about Ni? Also, what about when one Ni reports getting flashes of insight from no where, but doesn't report seeing archetypal images? Are they both Ni-doms? How do we know which one is right and which one is something else? Ultimately, I've read plenty of self identified Ni-doms describe their experiences in a number of contrasting ways, so which is the standard against which I measure for accuracy. Is it Jung or Lenore Thompson or a mix of both? Who's to know?



BigApplePi said:


> Did you mean Si and Ni to be the same here*???*


No. Read my original wording more closely. 



BigApplePi said:


> Disagree Ni has to limit itself to archetypes.


That's cool. But, it's still just your opinion since there are pretty much no facts in typology. That's the point of my post: there is no factual understanding of Ni. There are only different hypothetical interpretations of Ni, none of which have been factually proven more accurate up to this point. So, you can look at how Jung actually defines Ni in his writing and believe that. Or you can disagree, but ultimately you're basing that on your personal experiences, which are not facts. This means your opinion is neither more correct nor more incorrect; they're just different interpretations. That was the point of my original post. To make you aware there are are no facts about Ni, thus no single, universally agreed upon definition of Ni. The are only different interpretations of Ni. Yes, for the most part, these different interpretations have similar points, which I tried to point out to you. But, you kind of just ignored that and continued to insist on your own definition while simultaneously demanding that people give a single definition of Ni when no such thing exists.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Fuck the term "possibilities". ESFPs can see possibilities. I'm certain almost any type, the xxxP's in particular, can see possibilities. I like the word "potential" instead. It's just more...accurate.

That aside, to me, the distinction between Ni and Ne is really clear. For this, I'll be using the socionics +/- distinction to help illustrate the functions in, to me, a more accurate light. 

*Extraverted Intuition: *In general, Ne is an objective intuition. It works from Si impressions to form Ne conclusions. Si is low, which is why the individual tends toward much broader and unspecific language. As this intuition is objective, Ne users do not have the "pang" that Ni users. That pang is subjective. They do, however, have "eureka" moments, where all the parts have aligned to create the "correct" understanding. Additionally, because the intuition is objective, they are able to rationalize and follow their reasoning--they always know how they came to a intuition and can explain it. 
---

Ne+: _What could be._ This is the "brainstorm" "drafting "search for potential/possibilities" that people talk about. Found in Alphas (xNTP/xSFJ), Ne+ is a the objective search for "what if". That's why xNTPs, stereotypically, seem to ask questions of "what ifs" and, in arguments, tend to argue on information that is irrelevant. It's terribly expansive, leading xNTPs, in particular, to be fixated on future potential, which is crippling to these types. 

Ne-: _What could be, but isn't. _This is quite a bit different from Ne+. It's discriminatory in the sense that it's an automatic filtration of what is within reason. This is why Delta types (xNFP/xSTJ) have the bias toward realism in all their workings--they filter the information to the likely possibilities. Ne- types reason backward to find the most likely answer, rather than working based on assumptions, like Ne+. This is also is probably explained because of interaction with Te.

*Introverted Intuition*: As I understand it, it is a very kinisthetic pang (likely because of Se). The individual will feel, with certainty, that somehing is right/wrong, as it is wholly subjective. It cannot explain things--it just knows. I imagine an Ni dom feels as if there is some vague light that guides them in the present, yet they can't quite reach the light. Still, they're drawn to it, and in doing so, avoid perilous circumstances. I also don't quite understand the difference between Ni+ & Ni-, yet. I don't experience it. I just know it's not Ne.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

surgery said:


> That being said, please clarify what you mean by "a whole." A whole what? *In English, "whole" is not a noun,* so it can't be the direct object of a verb. In other words, "a whole" cannot be apprehended. Also clarify which part of the mind: the unconscious, the conscious, something else?


Sorry to take away from your overall point. I just had to nitpick this. 

From the Oxford Dictionary:

*whole*
NOUN

1 A thing that is complete in itself:
_the subjects of the curriculum form a coherent whole_

2 (the whole) All of something:
_the effects will last for the whole of his life

_[HR][/HR]


Raawx said:


> Fuck the term "possibilities". ESFPs can see possibilities. I'm certain almost any type, the xxxP's in particular, can see possibilities. I like the word "potential" instead. It's just more...accurate.


Well since I've got my dictionary out... "Possibility" and "potential" are synonyms. Can you please explain how one is more accurate than the other? I'm genuinely curious.

[HR][/HR]
To no one in particular: I'd also like to throw out there that Intuition is not just concerned with the future. Personally, I like to refer to Jung's basic paradigm for categorical distinctions:



> These four functional types correspond to the obvious means by which consciousness obtains its orientation to experience. Sensation (i.e. sense perception) tells us that something exists; thinking tells you what it is; feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not; and *intuition tells you whence it comes and where it is going.*


In regards to time, intuition is concerned with not just the future, but the past as well. But, as some of us have discussed earlier in this thread, it applies to space as well.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

@_PaladinX_, there are words that are synonyms, that are not entirely the same. The words "light" and "bright" are synonyms, yet they can be entirely different under certain contexts. 

Now, for the difference:

Potential -- I just imagine potential energy, except, in a different form. The word has a weight to it that implies that there is an answer or an alternative path that is fruitful, unlike possibilities.

Possibilities -- It's just a vague, flowery word with no clear and set meaning. It encompasses the word potential in all it's definitions, but the reverse is untrue. The word, unlike potential, is an empty void. 

Perhaps Ne+ is possibilities and Ne- is potential. Maybe it's an irrational dislike. I don't know. I just can't stand the word--probably because it misrepresents Ne, to me.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Raawx said:


> @_PaladinX_, there are words that are synonyms, that are not entirely the same. The words "light" and "bright" are synonyms, yet they can be entirely different under certain contexts.
> 
> Now, for the difference:
> 
> ...


Interesting! Those distinctions sound heavily influenced by feeling if you don't mind me saying. Thanks for clarifying!

BTW, I see what you are saying about synonyms, but dictionary.com's definition of "potential" is literally "possibility."


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Interesting! Those distinctions sound heavily influenced by feeling if you don't mind me saying. Thanks for clarifying!
> 
> BTW, I see what you are saying about synonyms, but dictionary.com's definition of "potential" is literally "possibility."


Yeah, it is, which is why it's really hard to explain, aha. 

WELL I GUESS ITS DIFFERENT TO ME AHH.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I have seen Ni listed as time and Ne as space. I don't know the justification, or if it is true. It is an interesting concept though. It sounds like Kant's philosophy. It is a mediator between rationalism and empiricism. Empiricists say everything is experience. Everything can be reduced to experience. Kant said that all experience takes place within time and space, but time and space are not given by experience. They are "pure intuitions" as Kant called them. Time and space are Kant's two intuitions. Everything happens within them. But nobody actually experiences them. It does sound a lot like unconscious perception of intuition. 

It is the same thing with spacetime or fields. Everything happens within them. But take everything away, and you take away spacetime. Ni wants to unify, and Ne wants to diversify. Ni would be on the left, and Ne on right.










The closed universe is likely to be younger. Ni-Se. Ne-Si is older and more spread out.


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

BlackFandango said:


> Did I explain that well enough?


VERY well, thank you! C:


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I find this thread an embarrassment of riches. I've never seen a thread with so many possibilities addressed ... too many to cover with thoroughness. If only the loose ends could be woven together but who can say? This thread is about Ne vs Ni and so we've tried to get at discovering what each is and how they differ. Everyone has an opinion because we all have some form of intuition and understanding it seems important.

The MBTI is said to address 16 personalities. As if those personalities could be pulled together. It's like the proverbial herding of cats. They've all come to this thread and we can't herd them. Jung is the founder and being so deserves respect even though he defined less than the 16.

Speaking of defining I want to point out something. There is a difference between the discussing of something, the bringing out of ideas and the formal rigorous defining of something. Defining or presenting meaning is best done when when expanding an equivalence in simpler terms. We can try for "simpler" but who is to say what is simpler? Use a synonym or a word with more complex implications and we have failed. Yet hopefully our words center around a usage in common. If we can't find a usage in common it's like a solar system with two suns. We can deal with it but it will be more difficult.

I believe in using a tool (among others) for understanding which I call "fuzziness." All things definitions, terms, meanings, what-have-you are fuzzy. They have a central core and a blurred periphery. Nothing is perfectly clear or precise. There is no escaping this. Think of the Earth. The Earth is a solid planet or so we would think. No it isn't. It is solid, liquid, and gas. The center is solid iron, the mantel is softer, the surface is wet, the boundary is uncertain as it is air. 

So it is with Ne and Ni. Just my $.02.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I have seen Ni listed as time and Ne as space. I don't know the justification, or if it is true.


Maybe someone took a survey of examples.




> It is an interesting concept though. It sounds like Kant's philosophy. It is a mediator between rationalism and empiricism. Empiricists say everything is experience. Everything can be reduced to experience. Kant said that all experience takes place within time and space, but time and space are not given by experience. They are "pure intuitions" as Kant called them. Time and space are Kant's two intuitions. Everything happens within them. But nobody actually experiences them. It does sound a lot like unconscious perception of intuition.


Strongly disagree with Kant. (I hate to pick on a dead man who can't fight back.) I'll bet that a skilled psychologist would say both time and space are generalizations of our experience of both. A one year old infant has no conception of abstract time and space though it may have a sensory experience with them. (Why am I waiting for my next feeding? How come I can't reach that breast?) I could propose our intuition of time and space is merely the gestalt "vision" of accumulated time and space experiences while our brain looks at abstractions.




> Ni wants to unify, and Ne wants to diversify.


Tell me if these are good examples of telling the difference:

Ni primary: I intuit time or space by abstracting from accumulated time and space experiences and pulling together just what they have in common for a unified result.
Ne auxiliary: I'm sculpting this model. I will reach out wildly for needed variables and if time, space, motive, and uncertainty hit the spot, I will use them for my model.

Ni: Everyone is complaining about the chaos. I've got a theory that will pull everything together, but I can't prove it.
Ne: I'm doing it because I'm creating a pattern you see with this and this and that and more.


----------



## BlackFandango (Apr 4, 2014)

[Double post]


----------



## BlackFandango (Apr 4, 2014)

Here, I think, is a perfect example of how Ne and Ni differ in their thinking. It came out of a conversation with my father.

Me (INFJ): "I can't stand it when people try to use what has happened to try to determine what is going to happen. You have to use what is happening to determine what is going to happen."

Dad (Older, well-developed ESFJ): "Exactly. But you can use what has happened to determine what could happen."


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

BlackFandango said:


> Here, I think, is a perfect example of how Ne and Ni differ in their thinking. It came out of a conversation with my father.
> 
> Me (INFJ): "I can't stand it when people try to use what has happened to try to determine what is going to happen. You have to use what is happening to determine what is going to happen."
> 
> Dad (Older, well-developed ESFJ): "Exactly. But you can use what has happened to determine what could happen."


Isn't this just inductive reasoning rather than intuition itself?


----------



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

Ni, along with the other perceiving functions, are not analytical. It'd be awesome if they were but it's Te, Ti, Fi and Fe that are considered the rational functions (Yes, Fi and Fe are rational according to Jung) or analytical. 

Lots of other people have provided really detailed descriptions of how both these functions differ however I also found this video to be quite helpful:


----------

