# What does N actually mean??



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Alicia. said:


> But then I would say my humour is very sarcastic and one or two people I sometime have to explain my self to.


Being a sensor doesn't mean you can't be sarcastic but an intuitive is more likely to be sarcastic than a sensor, and it requires intuition to spot sarcasm.


> And I can sometimes get 'feelings' about people but then I can usually put it down to a certain thing they said or the way they said it and I don't know if Fe might help that.


 That's Ni working through Se and Ti.


> This might sound a bit odd but is it similar to when your high and you make bigger jumps from one thing to another.


I have never been high so I can't quite relate to what you're describing but no. It's about seeing the unseen, hearing what is not being said. It's about finding symbolic meaning and patterns and to create connections. 

At least when it comes to Ne, it's about asking the what ifs, maybes and could bes. Maybe there is something more to this than what I'm seeing? What if he's telling me is not true? What are the meanings of these implications to me? How can I understand the world using this data?

Ne generates connections and asks questions that Ti tries to answer. It started with an intuitive leap that something was not right backed up by Si to find data that pit a specific pattern and Ti analyzed if the pattern is consistent. If it is, I am likely to say yes, this person is a troll.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

Alicia. said:


> oh well I dunno then I give up on the whole thing.


The post of yours I quoted earlier was an example of you using intuition, it's just that you're used to taking in what's there at face value rather than looking behind it for hidden meanings, so it came out really based in sensation. If you were able to disengage from the moment more, you'd find yourself using intuition to look at what things mean and how they relate.

It's the same situation that dominant intuitives have with sensing. Ni doms ignore the individual things they're perceiving, because to them, these things are irrelevant compared to the overall picture they've created and are focusing on. Ne doms ignore how something seems at first to them, because we're all about looking at how a thing can be different in different contexts.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dark Romantic said:


> The post of yours I quoted earlier was an example of you using intuition, it's just that you're used to taking in what's there at face value rather than looking behind it for hidden meanings, so it came out really based in sensation. If you were able to disengage from the moment more, you'd find yourself using intuition to look at what things mean and how they relate.
> 
> It's the same situation that dominant intuitives have with sensing. Ni doms ignore the individual things they're perceiving, because to them, these things are irrelevant compared to the overall picture they've created and are focusing on. Ne doms ignore how something seems at first to them, because we're all about looking at how a thing can be different in different contexts.


Just a thought to be nitpicky, but don't you mean the other way around if not, why do you describe Se and Si that way?


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Just a thought to be nitpicky, but don't you mean the other way around if not, why do you describe Se and Si that way?


Se is about perceiving things in the moment and as they happen. For Ni to work, the user will take in all that they see around them and fuse it into one giant picture that contains the greater significance of all these occurrences and happenings. Take a look at The Decline Of The West, for example; Oswald Spengler is basically taking a look at all these different cultures and the events within them, and fusing it all into one giant framework of history. In the book, you'll see him dismiss each individual event as irrelevant in itself, unless it's being tied to something else that is a part of the model he sets up.

For Ne to work, however, it requires that you take in a subjective perception of the item (saying this feels X, or this is Y qualitative description) before you can extrapolate and say that the subjective perception is not necessarily correct. Si roots what is being perceived to one subjective perception, Ne doms basically want to play around with that perception and reveal other ways it might be perceived.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dark Romantic said:


> Se is about perceiving things in the moment and as they happen. For Ni to work, the user will take in all that they see around them and fuse it into one giant picture that contains the greater significance of all these occurrences and happenings. Take a look at The Decline Of The West, for example; Oswald Spengler is basically taking a look at all these different cultures and the events within them, and fusing it all into one giant framework of history. In the book, you'll see him dismiss each individual event as irrelevant in itself, unless it's being tied to something else that is a part of the model he sets up.
> 
> For Ne to work, however, it requires that you take in a subjective perception of the item (saying this feels X, or this is Y qualitative description) before you can extrapolate and say that the subjective perception is not necessarily correct. Si roots what is being perceived to one subjective perception, Ne doms basically want to play around with that perception and reveal other ways it might be perceived.


But wouldn't individual things indicate Si based on that Si is more detail-oriented so the way I understand you seem to imply Ni doms use Si as inferior? I know I am hung up on semantics but I am trying to understand your reasoning as to why that specific phrasing.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

LeaT said:


> But wouldn't individual things indicate Si based on that Si is more detail-oriented so the way I understand you seem to imply Ni doms use Si as inferior? I know I am hung up on semantics but I am trying to understand your reasoning as to why that specific phrasing.


Not exactly, because only Se is concerned with things exactly as they are and how they happen. It does not read extra meaning into something, and does not relate it to the person's own experience. Therefore, Ni is necessary in order to add the ability to read meanings into things and relate these objective occurrences to the person perceiving them. Si is concerned with things which can be perceived and how they relate to the person; it's a subjective conclusion based on sensory perception (saying X is hot vs X is uncomfortable, for example).


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

LeaT said:


> But wouldn't individual things indicate Si based on that Si is more detail-oriented so the way I understand you seem to imply Ni doms use Si as inferior? I know I am hung up on semantics but I am trying to understand your reasoning as to why that specific phrasing.


Not exactly. When it comes to occurrences what Si users tend to do is compare it to some similar occurence or "standard template", while the Se user just looks at what happened. Ni and Si are quite similar, but Si users observe something demonstrative of a certain principle, and compare all new principles to that one principle. They base any judgements of new principles on this standard and they often use something that has worked before when solving a problem because they have observed it many times before. Ni lacks this template oriented focus, and is more rooted in the meanings and ideas behind or related to certain actions. Ni is more situation based, so the perception is usually generated within the frame of a specific event, which is then factored into a larger system of understanding. So when making judgements they use this mental storehouse and compare it to the situation at hand to form an idea about it.

I hope this makes some sort of sense. It's so hard to explain Ni when you're always using it. This made a lot more sense in my head.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dark Romantic said:


> Not exactly, because only Se is concerned with things exactly as they are and how they happen. It does not read extra meaning into something, and does not relate it to the person's own experience. Therefore, Ni is necessary in order to add the ability to read meanings into things and relate these objective occurrences to the person perceiving them. Si is concerned with things which can be perceived and how they relate to the person; it's a subjective conclusion based on sensory perception (saying X is hot vs X is uncomfortable, for example).





FacelessBeauty said:


> Not exactly. When it comes to occurrences what Si users tend to do is compare it to some similar occurence or "standard template", while the Se user just looks at what happened. Ni and Si are quite similar, but Si users observe something demonstrative of a certain principle, and compare all new principles to that one principle. They base any judgements of new principles on this standard and they often use something that has worked before when solving a problem because they have observed it many times before. Ni lacks this template oriented focus, and is more rooted in the meanings and ideas behind or related to certain actions. Ni is more situation based, so the perception is usually generated within the frame of a specific event, which is then factored into a larger system of understanding. So when making judgements they use this mental storehouse and compare it to the situation at hand to form an idea about it.
> 
> I hope this makes some sort of sense. It's so hard to explain Ni when you're always using it. This made a lot more sense in my head.


It makes sense, but yet as a tertiary Si user I keep thinking Si is more particular than Se. It's just the kind of feeling when you thought you understood how you used a particular function and then people say you don't 

To me Si is detail-oriented and in particular supports Fi at least in writing when I am the most aware of Si. So it becomes more the focus on how details build a mood but always in a larger structure. Gah.


----------



## Alicia. (Aug 2, 2012)

Thanks everyone for your help and input, I think maybe I'm being too stubborn about trying to understand how you N's think, I think it's all just a little bit above my head.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Alicia. said:


> Thanks everyone for your help and input, I think maybe I'm being too stubborn about trying to understand how you N's think, I think it's all just a little bit above my head.


It's alright. Sometimes it's hard to make abstract thoughts more concrete. We could probably do a much better job at explaining if we could ground our thoughts to something more tangible and easy to relate to.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

LeaT said:


> It makes sense, but yet as a tertiary Si user I keep thinking Si is more particular than Se. It's just the kind of feeling when you thought you understood how you used a particular function and then people say you don't
> 
> To me Si is detail-oriented and in particular supports Fi at least in writing when I am the most aware of Si. So it becomes more the focus on how details build a mood but always in a larger structure. Gah.


Well Si being detail-oriented has a lot to do with the fact that it cares about aspects of the sensory experience. Se doesn't care that an apple is red, just that it is red. Si might look at the redness of the apple and remind the person of an orchard they think fondly of. This does not happen with Se. This is why Ni is necessary in order to lend some sort of significance to the sensory perception.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Also @Alicia. Just keep at it. I have been at it for almost a year, and I still don't fully understand Ni. Jung himself even said that Ni is vastly more difficult to understand than all of the other functions. Ne isn't a walk in the park either.


----------



## Alicia. (Aug 2, 2012)

I wanna try to meet an N so if anyone lives in Portsmouth, UK or knows an N that does, wanna go to the pub or something? haha I would like to try to get to know one and what makes you guys tick


----------



## Alicia. (Aug 2, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Also @_Alicia._ Just keep at it. I have been at it for almost a year, and I still don't fully understand Ni. Jung himself even said that Ni is vastly more difficult to understand than all of the other functions. Ne isn't a walk in the park either.


I doubt very much I will be at this in a year something new will grab my attention in a week


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Alicia. said:


> I doubt very much I will be at this in a year something new will grab my attention in a week


Ha alright well hopefully it comes to you before then.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Alicia. said:


> does anyone have any real examples of when they might have used intuition or situations when it might be impossible to use sensory.


Newton used intuition when he noticed the similarities between the physics of Kepler and Galilei. He "saw" the common underlying principle and could formulate a theory of the whole universe (at the time). That's intuition; you can't see an underlying principle with your eyes and you can't deduce it by logic either since there is no logical reason why Galilei's and Kepler's theories must be the same thing rather than just similar.


----------



## Alicia. (Aug 2, 2012)

Staffan said:


> Newton used intuition when he noticed the similarities between the physics of Kepler and Galilei. He "saw" the common underlying principle and could formulate a theory of the whole universe (at the time). That's intuition; you can't see an underlying principle with your eyes and you can't deduce it by logic either since there is no logical reason why Galilei's and Kepler's theories must be the same thing rather than just similar.


Oh yes, I had just been discussing the similarities between the physics of Kepler and Galilei yesterday! 

I can't really work out why you put that, either you genuinely thought I would know about Kepler and Galilei, no idea why you would think that. Or you thought I wouldn't and wanted to put me down a bit, in which case that's more of a reflection on you really.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Alicia. said:


> Oh yes, I had just been discussing the similarities between the physics of Kepler and Galilei yesterday!
> 
> I can't really work out why you put that, either you genuinely thought I would know about Kepler and Galilei, no idea why you would think that. Or you thought I wouldn't and wanted to put me down a bit, in which case that's more of a reflection on you really.


Sorry, it just occurred to me that it was a great example. Didn't mean to put you down. 

What I mean is that intuition can come up with new ideas using meaningful connections and patterns. You can see a pattern - but not with your eyes or other senses, and usually not with logic either. A tennis player can notice how his opponent moves and spot a pattern suggesting a knee injury for instance. Or intuition can start as an idea and find a solution by connecting previously unconnected things. Since pre-historic times man has used fire for illumination. Then someone (possibly Edison) connected this idea with electricity to creat a controlled and very bright little fire in a lightbulb. That's also intuition. It's all about making meaningful connections.


----------



## Alicia. (Aug 2, 2012)

It's probs a great example for a scientist, not me really. But I think I might understand from what you said after. Is that where my brain would automatically discard information that doesn't seem relevant at the time, you might subconsciously retain things that when something else happens suddenly becomes relevant. Then you can come to a conclusion that I may not arrive at because you have more information even though you may not consciously remember it.

If that's correct I can deff see how that would be useful in every day life. But wouldn't it be hard to trust it if you don't know where it's coming from or would you just be able to believe that it's true without doubting yourself.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Alicia. said:


> It's probs a great example for a scientist, not me really. But I think I might understand from what you said after. Is that where my brain would automatically discard information that doesn't seem relevant at the time, you might subconsciously retain things that when something else happens suddenly becomes relevant. Then you can come to a conclusion that I may not arrive at because you have more information even though you may not consciously remember it.
> 
> If that's correct I can deff see how that would be useful in every day life. But wouldn't it be hard to trust it if you don't know where it's coming from or would you just be able to believe that it's true without doubting yourself.


Yes, you seem to have a grip on it. 

Intuition is an unreliable function for sure. It's a matter of guessing and being right often enough for it to pay off. But it can go very wrong when an intuitive person can't let go of an idea that has been building up for a long time. This is the function that generates conspiracy theories and superstition.


----------

