# What is Dominant Ni good for?



## Bmoss (Dec 24, 2014)

Jung I know was probably ISTP or INTP, that Dominant or auxiliary Ti was good for breaking things down, so what about Ni? I'm not sure


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

ghost-hunting

they're always seeing shit that isn't there so i think they'd prosper in this line of work


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Spooking people


----------



## jinhong91 (Apr 29, 2014)

If the question had the word "even" in it, I'd say absolutely nothing. (Song reference)

Seriously though, it is good for identifying patterns. Patterns that aren't physically there. As to whether it is good or not depends on the user. Compare a psychic-like person with a nutty conspiracy theorist. Its about how it is used.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

I've been watching The Apprentice recently. Last night one of the teams failed a task because they failed to accurately gauge the cost of what they were preparing. I thought about it and tried to work out if I'd have made the same mistake. My way of thinking about it was to envision the entire business process from purchasing to selling, attempting to account for as many necessary variables as possible. That's what I think Ni is good for. It can conceptualise wholes with very little physical data.

As an INFJ that's pretty much where it stopped for me. Conceptualisation is the end point for Ni-doms most of the time.


----------



## WindowLicker (Aug 3, 2010)

Knowing stuff.


----------



## ThreadDeath (Oct 28, 2014)

(See also: _Down The Rabbit Hole of Introverted iNtuiting_)

I'm mostly ignorant of the cognitive functions, but Ni seems to be the instrument I most intensively leverage when solving problems. This preference becomes especially evident whenever I'm debugging code, since uh, that's where I invest a significant fraction of my time in.

So, let's assume that somewhere within the abyss of some project's codebase exists this horrible 2k line function with 20 parameters and excessive cyclomatic complexity, which I --or, even worse, some other poor soul-- wrote ages ago, that's malfunctioning or otherwise not performing satisfactorily. My task would be to identify the exact source code location(s) --that is, a set of program elements comprising lines, statements and expressions-- causing the issue, and condition(s) (e.g. arguments supplied, control flow) which, when met, result in its manifestation, as well as, obviously, write a patch to resolve it. Usually, I initially read through the existing code line by line, along with the accompanying documentation, trying to precisely understand how the particular software module works. Often, however, I find myself unable to keep on digesting all the little details after a while, and begin to progressively disregard bits and pieces which are seemingly irrelevant ("_heck I don't care how that 100 line loop with the 23 local variables over there actually works; it seems to facilitate X, which obviously can't have anything to do with Y's crashing_"). Soon I realize that I've excluded too much from my investigation, having spent hours doing nothing but aimlessly skimming through the code. "_I can't do this, I'm so fucking doomed_" I tell myself, exit my IDE and call it a day. Or even repeat the above steps in the course of the following days without achieving any visible progress. Inevitably however, be it hours or weeks later, Ni will eventually kick in and save my sorry ass.

I tend to experience those famous moments of great insight emerging out of thin air unexpectedly, while engaged in completely unrelated, though most of the times relaxing activities, such as watching a movie or sitting on my balcony, stargazing, enjoying a glass of scotch. The cool part is that I'll instantly _just know_ which code’s faulty and how, on a high level, I'll have to modify it to make it functional. The cause might've been some little trivial detail in that dreaded aforementioned loop I neglected to closely examine, or even something outside the scope of the subsystem under examination --an external library or even some remote process-- that no serious coder would usually consider to be responsible --at least not before having scrutinized all of the obviously connected parts first. The not so cool aspect of it is that I'm still clueless about how the internals of the subsystem are wired together. I am myself confident that my changes will be effective, but to any of my collaborators, my train of thought will be inexplicable. Furthermore, if I'd initially been tasked with refactoring that bloody function or improving its documentation, I doubt Ni would be of conspicuous help.

To sum up and try to address your question, to my eye Ni appears to put me on the right track when searching for solutions to a problem, narrowing down the different approaches to a single, rather theoretical one, which I trust and is usually proven correct once pursued. I definitely agree with @Khiro, having suggested that it enables one to conceptualize systems on the highest level of abstraction. However, Ni is neither necessarily correct, nor the most efficient means of confronting a problem. Additionally, at least in my case, some varying amount of thinking always needs to be involved in the later stages, when my Ni's abstract methodology must at last lead to the production of a concrete, tangible solution to employ. So that’s Ni --impressive but has its limits.


----------



## Bmoss (Dec 24, 2014)

Thanks a lot :wink:


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

I can't think of any in particular Ni is good for:laughing:. If my INTJ husband and I have a communication break down, trust me it stems from Ni. Sometimes the things he says and does makes absolutely no sense to me, none whatsoever. Ni can be quite stubborn, and when it gets in a mood, nothing can change their mind. EX, my husband is quite stubborn doing things what I perceive as normal, lol. I don't get the logic behind some of his decisions, and those decisions can take way too long. If he had done it the way his wife told him in the first place we wouldn't be having the conversation, ha !...seriously though, the decision making process drives me nuts at times.


----------



## Chris Merola (Jul 11, 2014)

Ni is awesome at envisioning the future and its possibilities accurately and depending which auxiliary function you have it can be generally geared toward relationships (Fe aux, INFJ) or enacting plans and doing ambitious projects. (Te aux, INTJ)

It also helps you get a leg up in most forms of education and learning; Ni is conceptual and it grasps big thinking and new ideas very easily. It just connects the dots like nothing else, even when one isn't aware. For example, an Ni dom can usually see where one is going in conversation before their sentence has even reached midway, or they can tell how a movie or book will end long before the climax.

Ni is also in tune with the unseen energy and spiritual realm out there, especially when paired with the people-reading Fe aux. Now, this really isn't too useful and makes you look like a loon whenever you discuss that kind of stuff, but it is an interesting skill nonetheless.

The shortcomings of Ni would be jumping to conclusions too quickly, getting absorbed in worrying or fantasizing about the future at the cost of the present moment, or being too abstract and drawing connections where there may well be none.

The major usefulness of it comes from great foresight, which can aid one's life in numerous practical ways. Enacting business plans, seeing what position someone would be great at in the long run, being able to envision the future so accurately that you could effectively run through situations in your head to see which decisions would stick and which would be mistakes, etc. The easy grasping of big concepts make Ni users great at intellectual pursuits or summing things up in digestible manner for a teaching job. When paired with Fe, its great for counseling and therapy; seeing where ones progress will go and nudging them in the right direction.

Honestly, I don't know what I'd do without Ni. Its freaking awesome !


----------



## WorldPeace (Dec 30, 2014)

I have a dominant/auxiliary iNtuition (slightly I- and E- NFP) and my friends say that I'm very good at mediating complex arguments.

(Though just after posting this, I realized that my function is Ne not Ni. _Oops._)


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

"It can conceptualize wholes with very little physical data in business."

That is how you go bankrupt.


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

nichya said:


> "It can conceptualize wholes with very little physical data in business."
> 
> That is how you go bankrupt.


No, that is how you formulate long term business strategies and how you steer an entire company with tens of thousands of employees and billions of dollars of assets towards an envisioned future state and manipulate them as a cohesive integrated whole. (Combined with Te, of course)


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

Ni's Pro: it's good for gauging the parameters of [hypothetical] aftermaths. It's often felt thru overhanging sensations that a context isn't as it seems.

Ni's Con: it's good for madness if you can't decipher the equations timely enough to enjoy the demolition of prodigal, glass houses.


----------



## The Hungry One (Jan 26, 2011)

Sounding hella smooth. All the xNxJs I know are really good at talking maybe because Ni keeps them from going on tangents. This makes them super convincing.

To be honest Ni is the function I understand the least (second is Si). I feel like it's good at quickly making what feels like the right decision, in a way that's similar to Fi.

I suppose Fi (itself the standard) judges the ideas that are presented by Ne. 
While Ni _knows _things with the assistance of the auxiliary function as the "standard."

E.g. perhaps INFJs make quick decisions with Ni observing patterns (~mysterious patterns~) to decide between options, with Fe "values" used as a more flexible, external "standard" to "judge" the options presented.

The part I don't get is the ~mysterious patterns~.


----------



## Afterburner (Jan 8, 2013)

Ni apprehends the inner impressions left by possibilities/ideas from external objects. So it's not only filtering away data from the object themselves (one step removed from reality), but it doesn't objectively focus on the ideas associated with them (two steps removed). It absorbs the marks ideas leave on the mind; not the ideas themselves nor the object from which they came.

That said, it doesn't mean an Ni Dom can't do what Ni alone (which doesn't exist or make sense) does not do. What it does provide, however, is a very idiosyncratic view of the world by way of heavy associational thinking, pattern recognition, and unconscious insight (though this is vague). This means it does well with open conceptual spaces where there's free abstract roaming for data crunching. So Ni doms are good synthesizers of information, and anything that allows for or requires that will be something Ni-Se can have a field day with. Give an (perhaps philosophically inclined) INxJ two random quotes and he or she can probably tie them together with a long thread and create a new idea from it. 

In short, dominant Ni is good for synthesizing data and perspective shifts. 
Think of Marxism. It's a broad interpretation of history based on a synthesis of ideas about events in history; tying them together and looking for the pattern in creates. This misses *a lot* of details. Society cannot be explained solely through power and production (sorry if I'm being simplistic; I'm not an expert on Marxism). But it was a major break from traditional modes of thought, and so threw a light on an aspect of society that had not been largely considered: our economic environment/background shaping us and what we do. It doesn't explain everything, but it offers another dimension.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The responses in this thread are giving me cancer.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Entropic said:


> The responses in this thread are giving me cancer.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Zero11 said:


> View attachment 248098


That's what happens when you fool around with dubious characters, you get crabs.


----------



## Windblownhair (Aug 12, 2013)

Afterburner said:


> Give an (perhaps philosophically inclined) INxJ two random quotes and he or she can probably tie them together with a long thread and create a new idea from it.


...and now I want to do that. 

So my dad (INTJ) and I play this game where we'll give each other a cd with a random assortment of songs. We'll have to figure out what the songs have in common. Would this be a Ni game?


----------

