# A Model of Ni



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

Now I haven't studied up a whole bunch on the functions, but I created a simple model of what I think Ni looks like in action. Interestingly enough, it looks much like the neural networks found all over in the brain. Google image that and you'll see. I'm thinking maybe that this model works for all the functions, but each node and the process to reach that node represent something different.

What does the mass of Personality Cafe members think? And by the way, it would be cool that if you disagreed with my model, you posted one of your own to counter it.

EDIT: I forgot to add that the observations or recalled memories may be theoretical.


----------



## phantom_cat (Jan 1, 2011)

hmm. I'm just trying to figure out that one definition for Ni that explains it well.

added: the observation could be the Se inferior, the memory wouldn't be a solid line but more like a dotted line (these are the mini conclusions), like an imprint instead of a solid object, the supporting idea would be foggy (it's the result of what Se picked up), the speculation would be knowing something is not right or is right, and the conclusion has yet to happen, or only can be seen (future forecasting) if you focus on the observation. Using Ni sometimes you know the result/answer, this is that unknown being filled in subconsciously to make that foggy idea turn into the conclusion/answer/result. Asking "what's going on here?" could help focus on this obversation. by asking the right question that combines all the aspects of what Se picks up, that's why you get the "ah ha!", and then it all makes sense. The reason this is easily done and sometimes very quickly is because Ni is an Ni user's world that's filled with tiny bits of information, instead of solid memories.

I dunno, still working on this.


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

I think the key to understanding Ni is grasping the subjectivity of it. It's a personal take on the world order, which in the diagram comes from the speculation bit. You redefine things in order to make them make more sense, as according to your own perception.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

Looks like you actually start out with the conclusion, that's interesting. Or are you from Japan? If not, why would you put it on the left? Is it that Ni so much longs for a conclusion?


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

babblingbrook said:


> Looks like you actually start out with the conclusion, that's interesting. Or are you from Japan? If not, why would you put it on the left? Is it that Ni so much longs for a conclusion?


I don't know exactly. When I'm thinking, which is always, I seem to begin with a conclusion and try to prove if it is true. *I don't begin my thoughts with scatterbrain observations just to see if they fit into a pattern that leads to a conclusion.* My mind is well made up on what I want to see proven. Just think of the scientific method. The hypothesis comes before the experimentation. 

It's incredibly likely that those who came up with the scientific method were NT's(I mean let's just get real), which probably shares a very similar overall thought process that goes along those lines.


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

The only problem I have with your model is that it seems too linear, more like Si than Ni. I hope you don't mind but I copied your diagram and made some modifications to explain my point:









My theory is more like an interconnections of neurological networks that shifts the experience or memory completely to come up with different meanings of what it has experienced. Then, out of all those meanings( I called them hypotheses) one ultimate meaning (or ultimate hypothesis) would merge from all that chaos and then you would come up with a conclusion based on that.

Unlike Ne that would come up with several "ultimate hypothesis", Ni would narrow its focus to only one. I think this is where the real distinctions between Ne and Ni lie.

Another way that I could explain it is by Ni's sudden 'a-ha' moments, which seems to occur when all those networks of neurons have made their way to the 'green triangle' in the diagram, which is why everything looks so clear but you don't know what happened because it's impossible to know what went behind the scenes before it got there.



> I don't begin my thoughts with scatterbrain observations just to see if they fit into a pattern that leads to a conclusion.My mind is well made up on what I want to see proven. Just think of the scientific method. The hypothesis comes before the experimentation.


I think that has to do more with Te than Ni, actually. Ni is only a perceiving function, while Te makes judgments and predictions out of it.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

Iconoclastic Visionary said:


> The only problem I have with your model is that it seems too linear, more like Si than Ni. I hope you don't mind but I copied your diagram and made some modifications to explain my point


No you've got a more realistic version of mine. I just didn't want to have to take the time to get all the lines in, because there would just be so damn many, haha. Of course, a true model would be way more complex, but I figured I got the simplicity of down pretty well. I like yours, but the ultimate hypothesis thing throws me off. Do you say ultimate as though it is being compared to other hypothesis's?

EDIT: Never mind, haha, I didn't see the circles.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

WHOA! lol I didn't think it was that noisy in my head until I saw the altered Ni diagram version. But with Te in the mix--- I think it's starts looking like the original version. 

I start with the conclusion too. And most people usually present concepts by the outcome before they talk about the process.


----------



## IonOfAeons (Dec 2, 2010)

I kind of think of it like 'tugging' on the lines as well. So when you move towards conclusions some of the points will drag with you which might ripple and bring another thought into the realm of conclusions too and keep your thoughts flexible.


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

babblingbrook said:


> Looks like you actually start out with the conclusion, that's interesting. Or are you from Japan? If not, why would you put it on the left? Is it that Ni so much longs for a conclusion?


No, that's actually quite accurate. The conclusion comes first. It's the "aha" moment or the hunch, which is then justified by speculation and memory recall. Many times when I debate somebody, they might say something and my body tells me that I strongly disagree and I will then have to look into myself to see what it is.


----------



## thegirlcandance (Jul 29, 2009)

I don't know if it is just me, but when I initially looked at your diagram I thought "This would work for ANY cognitive function because all functions explain how we process information. This does not necessarily explain how Ni in itself works but how we take in information".

But, who knows, maybe I misunderstood or misinterpreted the diagram. :wink:


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

thegirlcandance said:


> But, who knows, maybe I misunderstood or misinterpreted the diagram. :wink:


Is that a nice way of saying, "it's dumb"?

As I said, I'm not well-versed into the functions, and you are probably right in a degree. They could all work similar to that, which is why I thought it funny that it seemed to work like a neural net, which is something that _everybody_ has many a million.

Honestly I was hoping that someone would specify my model into a more realistic version suited more specifically to Ni. I didn't say that clearly, but @Iconoclastic Visionary went ahead and did it anyway.


----------



## phantom_cat (Jan 1, 2011)

I typed up an example of how Ni works in a Ni thread on here. to summarize it, it's like tiny mirrors on every data point that can be moved. actually to make a model of this I'd put a large circle in the middle with smaller circles around it, and wherever the light bounces off of the mirrors (of the smaller circles) the current image of what will happen is in the middle.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

funny. my ENTP friend draw a picture of how his mind works, he doesent know about MBTI nor Ne. few days before i had been thinking of this same thing and came to same conclusion

this is what we both had in mind










only difference was that his "mind" started from up, combining branches to form the one truth on the bottom. but mine started from bottom and branches are possibilities for the truth, bottom is one question that after a little Ti'ing has 4 plausible truths(only one is the actual truth tho) and when they branch, the branches are kind of sub questions/deductions and i go deeper every way from every question to find which of these possible truths hold on when i think them deeper.

i asked about if other NTs think this way on another forum while ago, some could relate, some didnt, i think its more of N thing than Ni or Ne thing


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Here's how I illustrated the difference between the two N attitudes:


----------



## SuperunknownVortex (Dec 4, 2009)

So would introverted sensing (Si) be the exact opposite as this proposed diagram (which I adore, by the way!)?


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

SuperunknownVortex said:


> So would introverted sensing (Si) be the exact opposite as this proposed diagram (which I adore, by the way!)?


Wouldn't the opposite of Ni be Se? Si would have much less to do with the supporting ideas, and more with the observations. You see in Ni, the observations only help prove an idea, whereas with Si... the observations speak for themselves. This is where it gets confusing because I think Keirsey's Intelligent Roles play a huge role here, which unfortunately many people here are not well-versed in.

Hahaha, you adore the diagram? That's either a compliment or an insult.


----------



## neuropedia (Mar 12, 2011)

I made this model to describe my mind to my psychologist when I was fifteen


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

neuropedia said:


> I made this model to describe my mind to my psychologist when I was fifteen


What model?


----------



## neuropedia (Mar 12, 2011)

Paradox of Vigor said:


> What model?


the one from the OP


----------

