# Ni vs Ne and how they are functionally used



## Kast (Oct 6, 2012)

Every thread, post, debate, etc. I've seen of Ne vs Ni likens Ne to association between components of a thought, object, etc. Conversely, attempts to explain Ni liken it to an implosion of details that combine them in such a way that they (usually tend to) lead to a more singular solution.

Going by that logic, Ne types are creative whereas Ni types are analytical. Now, I know that's not the case, but that's how the descriptions are given. Likewise, it makes Ne types appear literally scatterbrained and unable to produce a focused logical thought, whereas it also implies Ni types are unable to see past the singular meaning. Both of these are unacceptable, yet both are repeated to the point that it's mind-numbing.

As a more vivid example, traversing the threads in the INTP or ENTP forum results in people describing "Ne" in a way similar to the following: "I'm writing the number 8, I see a snowman! I think, 'I wonder when it's going to snow?' Snow! I love snow!" Yes, while it's exaggerated, it's also fundamentally disfunctional. The average person, be they xNTP or otherwise, cannot operate as a logical adult with that thought process 24/7. Sure, maybe during a brainstorm session, but during everyday life, no.

With Ni as the focus, many xNTJ's will describe "Well, I take in all of the information... and I wait. Then the answer comes, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly." Again, this is not conducive to logical, adult lifestyles or behavior. For long-term, deep thought-out plans, I could see an inordinate amount of time being required. However, the act of "waiting" for the answer to appear can't be completely correct, even if it appears to the user that is what is happening.

*If this was the case, then neither NTP's or NTJ's would be able to effectively complete an IQ test,* which both are obviously good at. If you're wondering why I used the oddly-specific example of an IQ test, that's because it's the root of what started the question: how would an N-user completing the shapes and pattern section of an IQ test know which type of intuition they were using (or any other exercise, the point being that patterns definitely exist but are unknown in the subject matter)?

Further, are there any tests that effectively display to the user their used cognitive functions (not just their preference)?


*Bonus question*:_ can someone use both introverted and extroverted versions of a function? Personally, I score consistently high, abnormally high, in both Te/Ti and Ne/Ni. On the chart, all of the other functions are a huge drop-off from there. It's driving me nuts because I'm trying to understand the functions and I can't even see a clear delineation in my top two (or four) functions in myself =/_


----------



## jakojako (Jul 5, 2012)

The functions don't work independently, they are all connected. Maybe this is why it is confusing to you? 
Also, do yourself a favor and let go of all these tests... IQ, function tests, even MBTI... they are for kids. 
Study functions more, and observe them in the real world... in yourself and others.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

There are many definitions of these, many of which were created because they "make sense" even though they weren't necessarily the exact same thing the founders defined.

Often times, the actual definition is A) a conceptual definition that is functionally or operationally defined by a list of measurements that correlate together and have many types of validity, concurrent, criteria, content, inter-item, etc...

The functional definition is a mix of many different measurements that relate to one another.

That along with the basic concept is what the definition is, which I think you know since you asked for a functional definition.

Read the original words of Jung first, then read myers briggs, then read a couple current theorists thoughts on them, then read some people on here's thoughts on them.

Many people define it based on what makes sense, but that is something else entirely.

My best way of knowing what these are, are knowing what they are not, or holding them up to what something ELSE is, so that it make sit OBVIOUS how different and unique it really is. Holding S and N up to a scale for example.

Then there is always the problem of the debate between people saying we don't use all of our functions and those that say we do, which is just a slightly different way of defining them.

I hope ive helped


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Jung considered them very very different, even though they're quite united in their general qualities, due to both being intuition. The introverted intuitive (dominant function only - auxes + don't count to Jung in Ch. 10 of PTs) to Jung was someone who tends to exist from the perspective of their visions - very much the kind of people who are inherently attuned to subliminal thought processes/happenings in people and what's going on behind-the-scenes on a highly metaphysical, non-empirical level (as in, they can often define the situation without facts, but rather, with a focus on underlying phenomena - they almost see the world as a natural source of subliminal messages). The extraverted intuitive, on the other hand, is someone who doesn't actually "exist" (or is the subject behind their intuitions) from the perspective of visions, but instead, chases after where they might manifest in the real world (they're usually aroused by novelty for this reason). The Ne type tends to get bored with their own visions if they lose any potential to expand, so often, they run off from their own ideas before really reaping the rewards of them for new ones. These ones would be good at tapping into places where subliminal messages can be "planted" to inspire action, so-to-speak. Neither function has anything to do with IQ in particular - those are just internet myths.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I would argue that Ne doms reference intuition as more of a "sourcing tool" with all kinds of environmental connotations, while Ni doms reference their intuitions through visions (not concrete visions, but some kind of perceptual phenomenologically-attuned mental construct that shifts in some kind of a perceptual paradigm extracted from their judging function ideas and with elements of inferior Se that have some kind of perceived impact on these types constituting this). It's tough for me to explain Ni without sounding a bit haphazard, because it couldn't get any closer to being my dominant.


----------



## Kast (Oct 6, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I would argue that Ne doms reference intuition as more of a "sourcing tool" with all kinds of environmental connotations, while Ni doms reference their intuitions through visions (not concrete visions, but some kind of perceptual phenomenologically-attuned mental construct that shifts in some kind of a perceptual paradigm extracted from their judging function ideas and with elements of inferior Se that have some kind of perceived impact on these types constituting this). It's tough for me to explain Ni without sounding a bit haphazard, because it couldn't get any closer to being my dominant.


So which version of intuition sees things instantaneously and realistically (i.e. the most probable path), but in a very cause-and-effect light? For example, a fish hook is left out on a coffee table in a house full of kids. An N-user sees it and knows instinctively that the hook will either end up scratching the table or hurting one of the kids. Sure, the hook "could" somehow get caught in someone's clothing and cause them to get caught on something down the road, but that's less probable.

Going from the stereotypical descriptions, neither type would be optimized to do this, as Ni is very singular in solution while Ne tries to avoid absolute solutions. I'm not saying I agree with this, it's just that the stereotypes seem to make them appear useless in everyday life when described the way that they are.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I would say your first question sounds more like Ne, since it's focused on actions and probable after-effects of action far into the future (inferior Si would be working in the background noting generalized sensation attributes the kids tend to have, which are not really easily communicable to the outside world). Ni can predict the same thing, but it would probably be from some kind of hunch from inferior Se data, like the kids actually moving a certain way, the sound of their footsteps tending to indicate certain oncoming impacts that make sense to the intuition of the Ni dom, or what have you (very hard to explain - sometimes, their actual orientation to the happening of tangible events can dictate their hunches if it's "in-the-moment" enough). Se is very much the "in-the-moment" function, while Ne is the one that's usually ten + steps ahead of the moment, so they end up almost completely repressing Se, because confining them to work with the moment as it is with respect to only present conditions is is almost impossible.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Kast said:


> So which version of intuition sees things instantaneously and realistically (i.e. the most probable path), but in a very cause-and-effect light? For example, a fish hook is left out on a coffee table in a house full of kids. An N-user sees it and knows instinctively that the hook will either end up scratching the table or hurting one of the kids.
> 
> Going from the stereotypical descriptions, neither type would be optimized to do this, as Ni is very singular in solution *while Ne tries to avoid absolute solutions.*


Just because a fish hook is seen and there is the anticipation of it scratching something or hurting a kid doesn't lead to some absolute solution. There's nothing fixed, each new piece of data brings new potential to the situation. Let's say the hook turned into a rabbit and hopped out the window instead. This wasn't explicitly anticipated but that is beside the point, its still a valid actualization (ignoring T functions  ), from which perception is adjusted accordingly. Whether _I_ think it could or couldn't happen is irrelevant, it just brings about the next things to expect. Magic tricks? Waking up from a dream? Or something even greater? If you need this in even more concrete terms, let's just say I'll be one of the only people in the room excited by this while everyone else is freaking out (well, depending on the ages of the kids.....and unfortunately reality is often so boringly predictable that it will just remain a hook and I'll find a place to hide it from the kiddies) See the second half of post #4 and you'll fully understand why.

For both varieties of intuition I'd suppose there is both much flexibility paired with its vision-expectation(s).


----------



## Kast (Oct 6, 2012)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Just because a fish hook is seen and there is the anticipation of it scratching something or hurting a kid doesn't lead to some absolute solution. There's nothing fixed, each new piece of data brings new potential to the situation. Let's say the hook turned into a rabbit and hopped out the window instead. This wasn't explicitly anticipated but that is beside the point, its still a valid actualization (ignoring T functions  ), from which perception is adjusted accordingly. Whether _I_ think it could or couldn't happen is irrelevant, it just brings about the next things to expect. Magic tricks? Waking up from a dream? Or something even greater? If you need this in even more concrete terms, let's just say I'll be one of the only people in the room excited by this while everyone else is freaking out (well, depending on the ages of the kids.....and unfortunately reality is often so boringly predictable that it will just remain a hook and I'll find a place to hide it from the kiddies) See the second half of post #4 and you'll fully understand why.


So if I'm understanding you, both my example and your example are Ne-based, it's just that I limited mine to logical solutions subjective to the subject?

That being the case, would a Ne user with a very, very well-developed Ti function would appear more streamlined, almost more Ni or even Se-like than Ne-like?

If so, I think I'm understanding the difference better now. Ne's objective perceptions will be filtered out subjectively, where the limitations are only as logical as the user. Ni is subjective, so whatever it can envision is tested objectively with their judging function and therefore is evaluated against reality (which arguably _appears_ much more logical overall).


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Kast said:


> So if I'm understanding you, both my example and your example are Ne-based, it's just that I limited mine to logical solutions subjective to the subject?
> 
> That being the case, would a Ne user with a very, very well-developed Ti function would appear more streamlined, almost more Ni or even Se-like than Ne-like?
> 
> If so, I think I'm understanding the difference better now. Ne's objective perceptions will be filtered out subjectively, where the limitations are only as logical as the user. Ni is subjective, so whatever it can envision is tested objectively with their judging function and therefore is evaluated against reality (which arguably _appears_ much more logical overall).


Something like that. I think you're getting to some sort of right track. 

As for your second question, let's just say there is a huge difference between being Ne dom and being Ti dom. (Sure there are those weird Ne doms with "very-developed Ti" but that still won't be quite the same difference)

Also I don't get how my example isn't streamlined. I'm talking of a sort of "anticipation" of anything, not of 500 different things consciously thought about, as some people try to make it be.


----------



## Kast (Oct 6, 2012)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Something like that. I think you're getting to some sort of right track.
> 
> As for your second question, let's just say there is a huge difference between being Ne dom and being Ti dom. (Sure there are those weird Ne doms with "very-developed Ti" but that still won't be quite the same difference)
> 
> Also I don't get how my example isn't streamlined. I'm talking of a sort of "anticipation" of anything, not of 500 different things consciously thought about, as some people try to make it be.


By "streamlined," I meant that Ne > Ti would filter out all of the noise that is ever so common with abstract Ne stereotypes, in effect making it appear less Ne and more... literal to the subject (even though it's not). For example: a discussion about pencils is taking place, which strays into the varied uses of pencils. A Ne dom / Ti aux joins the conversation, and due to their very strong Ti, produces the practical uses of a pencil (writing utensil, weapon, letter opener, etc.). It's not that the idea of making a catapult out of unsharpened pencils couldn't cross their minds, it's that it's not... natural or practical and therefore is filtered out (or maybe even it doesn't cross their mind due to a logical disposition). On the surface, this would appear very Si/Se-based, when in reality it's NeTi with a natural disposition towards the real world and common sense.

That was my question, in essence. Would the above be correct?


----------



## shivafang (Oct 12, 2012)

As the first comment says - they don't function independently.

INTP myself - my Ne actually *does* jump from thought to thought to thought and I wind up being in this huge stream of consciousness that jumps on and on. Is it dysfunctional? Yes (I also have ADHD-Inattentive type, which probably augments this)

However, when I want to focus on a thought (not a task) my Ti and Si kick in and I tend to think about it very deeply and thoroughly - often needing to look up and research specifics in order to fully grasp it.

Now - as for 'can you have traits of both' - yes. The charts in DaveSuperPowers videos ( which I can't link because I'm a newbie - but you can find them on YouTube ) show that they do overlap the 'middle' - you do actually use both i and e of each type - you just use one side significantly more than the other. Your 'shadow functions' do exist, but they are VERY much undeveloped and not you strengths.

"On the surface, this would appear very Si/Se-based, when in reality it's NeTi with a natural disposition towards the real world and common sense."

Being the type to have deep, focused thoughts does not automatically make one "logical" or "practical" - Maybe the tendency is there but it's not always the case. I do sometimes get VERY abstract/random with Ne (often when I'm tired - or if i've just taken my ADHD meds sometimes they make me more weird before they settle in) - the Ti/Si usually only strongly kick in if I take one of those brainstormed thoughts and then apply it or research it. (Brainstorm->Reasearch->Apply)

As for Ni being the type to 'read about a problem and then... wait' No, actually Ne does that too. My brain 'take in' tons of information like a sponge (even if I'm not thinking about it at the time) - then later if something comes up it's like... AHA! I know something about that - let me go see if I can find more about the information I remember! (Kinda similar to Aristotle's famous "Eureka!" moment)


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

Kast said:


> By "streamlined," I meant that Ne > Ti would filter out all of the noise that is ever so common with abstract Ne stereotypes, in effect making it appear less Ne and more... literal to the subject (even though it's not). For example: a discussion about pencils is taking place, which strays into the varied uses of pencils. A Ne dom / Ti aux joins the conversation, and due to their very strong Ti, produces the practical uses of a pencil (writing utensil, weapon, letter opener, etc.). It's not that the idea of making a catapult out of unsharpened pencils couldn't cross their minds, it's that it's not... natural or practical and therefore is filtered out (or maybe even it doesn't cross their mind due to a logical disposition). On the surface, this would appear very Si/Se-based, when in reality it's NeTi with a natural disposition towards the real world and common sense.
> 
> That was my question, in essence. Would the above be correct?


I do something very similar, which is why people consider me to be a literal thinker. And which is why I probably appear to be somewhat ISTJ-ish IRL.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Kast said:


> By "streamlined," I meant that Ne > Ti would filter out all of the noise that is ever so common with abstract Ne stereotypes, in effect making it appear less Ne and more... literal to the subject (even though it's not). For example: a discussion about pencils is taking place, which strays into the varied uses of pencils. A Ne dom / Ti aux joins the conversation, and due to their very strong Ti, produces the practical uses of a pencil (writing utensil, weapon, letter opener, etc.). It's not that the idea of making a catapult out of unsharpened pencils couldn't cross their minds, it's that it's not... natural or practical and therefore is filtered out (or maybe even it doesn't cross their mind due to a logical disposition). On the surface, this would appear very Si/Se-based, when in reality it's NeTi with a natural disposition towards the real world and common sense.
> 
> That was my question, in essence. Would the above be correct?


But what really throws a monkey wrench in that is how the stereotypes are _misleading_ there. It's actually Ti that is more abstracted, and Ne that is more concrete :tongue: I'm not sure that Ti would be the one responsible for making responses more practical, and it's pretty much anti real-world/common sense, operating with that which doesn't contradict the existing web of internalized conceptions. It's not that this hypothetical ENTP can't think of only practical things or must think of out-there things when discussing pencils..... but you have to ask, what use could an Ne-dom have for only common sense already out there things? Where's the potential in that? Where's the interest when all you can do after thinking about using a pencil as a letter opener is open letters with it? The question here to ask is whether beneath it is the question "can it be taken further?"


----------



## AnnaKidd (Oct 29, 2020)

Here is a video from Bite-sized socionics series by Encyclopedia Socionika on Ni vs Ne!


----------

