# Discussion surrounding the difference between Ni and Ne :D



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

If they were Gods:
Ni would be is the god of time
Ne would be the god of space


----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

Ni looks at a situation and starts analyzing the situation from all angles trying to narrow down the possibilities so that they can quickly get to the bottom of the truth behind that situation, while Ne looks at a situation and starts brainstorming all the possibilities arising from that situation and the possibilities keep expanding and expanding over time. 

You can easily tell an Ni and an Ne type just by having a conversation with them.

Supposed an Ni and Ne are having a conversation with each other. As the conversation goes on, the Ni wants to delve deeper and deeper into that topic, while the Ne starts getting bored and wants to start switching to another topic. The Ni type can basically talk about the same topic for hours, while the Ne type would get bored focusing on the same topic for hours. 

If I have to use one word to describe the main difference between Ni and Ne, I'd say Ni is about depth while Ne is about breadth.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Schizoid said:


> Ni looks at a situation and starts analyzing the situation from all angles trying to narrow down the possibilities so that they can quickly get to the bottom of the truth behind that situation, while Ne looks at a situation and starts brainstorming all the possibilities arising from that situation and the possibilities keep expanding and expanding over time.
> 
> You can easily tell an Ni and an Ne type just by having a conversation with them.
> 
> ...


This seems to work on all E/I differences functions.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

See the first video in @emberfly's sig. It explains the differences in process quite well (and gives actual examples.)


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> That text is abit much to just read as tert Ti unless you really go for it. You can always do your Ne magic and assemble and give summary explanations of the things. The one information->many idea and many idea->one information is kinda old and boring explanation nowdays I think and outdated.
> 
> Anything wrong with Ne working Ockham's razor-style and Ni is crafting connections?
> 
> edit; hint: infj approach this symbolically


You would really limit yourself based on a theoretical concept? "I can't understand this because I am only tertiary Ti." Lol I have a reading disability with a comprehension level comparable to a fourth grader. But I can understand it. It just took some time and effort. Just try. You can do it. 

I don't see what Occam's razor has to do with Ne. It sounds like a thinking or judging principle as a criteria by which to judge.

What does "Ni is crafting connections" even mean? What kind of connections? How does it differ from any other functions ability to create connections?




Captain Mclain said:


> It is just not practical. And not mixed up with todays conditions and situations so it is hard to relate to. Iv read all those description, chapter 2 and 3, but it does not stick as well as a well put metaphor or example on which I can think about and systemic sync with my own internal understanding of things.


What is not practical is suggesting that someone should be able to solve a complex math equation without first understanding arithmetic.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> You would really limit yourself based on a theoretical concept? "I can't understand this because I am only tertiary Ti." Lol I have a reading disability with a comprehension level comparable to a fourth grader. But I can understand it. It just took some time and effort. Just try. You can do it.


I have read it once. ;p Might be worth a second read it was valuable stuffs in there from what I remember.


PaladinX said:


> I don't see what Occam's razor has to do with Ne. It sounds like a thinking or judging principle as a criteria by which to judge.
> 
> What does "Ni is crafting connections" even mean? What kind of connections? How does it differ from any other functions ability to create connections?
> 
> ...


Ye, well. Ne have few Si datapoints which make your perception kinda cartoonish I might imagine which from then it is easier to draw connections between all the stuffs in it. Im thinking Family guy and the creator enfp. ;p Ni I dont know, it sounded kinda good I guess. I think it holds truth. ;p 

this is ofc my interpretation of Ne and Si. what else?


----------



## Knight of Ender (Mar 30, 2014)

Ni is like a sniper rifle, Ne is a machine gun.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

I like the way Pierce describes it

see here:




(start at 6:40)

I'll paraphrase what he said:

*Ne *- objective intuitive associations among actual objects. real stuff out in the world. One can think of it as "connecting the dots."

*Ni* - subjective intuitive associations not between objects but between impressions of objects. What one associates with objects. One can think of Ni as "filling in the blank." It still plays the "connect the dots" game, but it happens within the psyche and is not seen.

*note: object does not mean "thing" like a rock is a thing. Object means something that is external from the subject. See below for clarity:

*Ne* sees a red balloon, relates it to the process by which latex is created, relates that to the state of the latex industry, relates that to the decline in quality in red balloons, relates this to the effect it has on other industries, . . .

*Ni *sees a red balloon and thinks of a film it saw where a red balloon was used as a hitchcock device where the entire film was black and white except for this one red balloon. And Ni thinks "wouldn't it be cool to make a film like that with a red balloon in it and what if a hitchcock character were in it, or what if I put hitcock himself in it, and what if I made the film in such a way that it could be used to describe hitchcock devices and used the devices in a way that you could learn about them, 'cause I think I saw another film that was like that, and it was really cool, but it was still like a film with a plot and everything, and . . .


From this you can really see where this "always thinking of a grand, master plan" stereotype comes from for Ni.

And this crazy eccentric Ne character always coming up with the most creative thoughts you just never know how they made such connections.


edit:

You can see how, in both cases, both Ne and Ni ignored the _actual object_ (the red balloon) and went beyond the object into this abstract realm of intuitive connections.

Compared to Se/Si that ignore this abstract realm of intuitive connections and see the actual object.

In this way, Pierce describes Sensing and Intuition as equally disadvantaged or equally lacking in the other side's information.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

*sigh* more bullshit from everyone being spewed on something none of them are correctly, nore collectively defining, so all you're going to get is a whole bunch of people defining what they think something else, basically giving you a whole bunch properties that belong neither to Ni or Ne, which btw are Jungs concepts and literally derive from no where else.

I would explain but I learned a while ago that's pointless, so I'll let everyone continue confusing eachother even more. Now I understand why most people don't take this or typology serious, and probably never will but continue on seeing it as similar/identical to astrology, because of how everyone who does care about it can't even define something simple and understandable.

This forum: What's a square? Um idk but let's all look at squares, monkeys, and volcanoes to come to the answer because they all obviously have to do with a square, and by looking at the square to get your answer you're close minded, stupid, and you "sterilize thought".

You want to know what the difference between Ne and Ni is: Ones a fucking unicorn and the other is a fucking jester. There you go, there's your answer, its all bull shit or at least that's all your going to get on this forum, unless you're like everyone else and just care about " sticks out" or "what resonates" with you, then in that case you'll just make up your own bullshit definitions like everyone else and go about the rest of your life.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Deus Absconditus said:


> *sigh* more bullshit from everyone being spewed on something none of them are correctly, nore collectively defining, so all you're going to get is a whole bunch of people defining what they think something else, basically giving you a whole bunch properties that belong neither to Ni or Ne, which btw are Jungs concepts and literally derive from no where else.
> 
> I would explain but I learned a while ago that's pointless, so I'll let everyone continue confusing eachother even more. Now I understand why most people don't take this or typology serious, and probably never will but continue on seeing it as similar/identical to astrology, because of how everyone who does care about it can't even define something simple and understandable.
> 
> ...


Lol but this have been discussed 100 times and also if one is seriously interested in learning the definition there are loads of good sources for that. I guess when we are "discussing it" means pretty much talking around it in big circles to cover all the areas. ;p What is there to add really after one have read 
Socionics Information Elements
and 
Psychological Types - Wikisocion

People want new thoughts on these subjects and new connection, preferably to new situation and happenings from todays time. else just read a textbook

but sure, all thisVsThat will be kinda messy, its the hunt of polarity descriptions which are hard


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Ni is an introverted intuitive function that looks for patterns and symbolisms/underlying meanings based on probabilities. It's future oriented.

Ne is an extraverted intuitive function that looks for patterns and symbolisms based on possibilities. Interconnectivity.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> Lol but this have been discussed 100 times and also if one is seriously interested in learning the definition there are loads of good sources for that.* I guess when we are "discussing it" means pretty much talking around it in big circles to cover all the areas. ;p What is there to add really after one have read *
> Socionics Information Elements
> and
> Psychological Types - Wikisocion
> ...


Except they don't get new thoughts and new connections on the subjects or concepts, instead they get bullshit thoughts and bullshit connections that have nothing to do with either function, and only coelesces the collective thought of them with properties that have nothing to do with them, perpetuating the same confusion that has been ongoing since Jung first released the concepts in 1921. Nobody is even covering all of the areas but instead talking about other areas that have nothing to do with the functions.

This topic is pointless. The point is to understsnd and clarify the differences between two functions. Will this get done? No, therefore this whole topic is not only pointless but fruitless also.

If you want new thoughts and new connections then you have to first understand the concepts the way they were intended to be understood then you build off of them. Like how Jung never called Ne potential seeking but it logically derives from possible seeking, since seeing possibilities in a thing is simultaneously the same as seeing the potential Ina thing. Now that was a new connection and new thought, but everyone on this forum does the complete opposite. They ignore Jung on cognitive functions in the same way that somebody would ignore Einstein on E=MC^2, then make up their own concepts and definitions that have nothing to do with the cognitive functions, then portray them as that to confuse everyone else, and since everyone is doing it the confusion perpetuates to such a ridiculously high level that progression of the topic is never made and the topic becomes dead along with stagnant. 

Trust me I wish we could have an actual intelligent conversation that pushes the understanding of these concepts to new levels, finding real connections inherent within them that could give us more answers into our selves, while also giving us new subjects to discuss and build off of. I know though that I'm wishing for the impossible because p too many people have strayed so far away that trulpe understanding and reaching new heights is just out of reach.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Deus Absconditus said:


> Except they don't get new thoughts and new connections on the subjects or concepts, instead they get bullshit thoughts and bullshit connections that have nothing to do with either function, and only coelesces the collective thought of them with properties that have nothing to do with them, perpetuating the same confusion that has been ongoing since Jung first released the concepts in 1921. Nobody is even covering all of the areas but instead talking about other areas that have nothing to do with the functions.
> 
> This topic is pointless. The point is to understsnd and clarify the differences between two functions. Will this get done? No, therefore this whole topic is not only pointless but fruitless also.
> 
> ...


I kinda feel this when I see people who misstype self and then misunderstand everything based on that. Ina huh, I seen some interesting stuffs happening from time to time when picking up one of the Reinin Dichotomies and discussing it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> *I kinda feel this when I see people who misstype self and then misunderstand everything based on that.* Ina huh, I seen some interesting stuffs happening from time to time when picking up one of the Reinin Dichotomies and discussing it.


I agree wholeheartedly, and that literally describes 95% of people on this forum, and is exactly the reason for all the misunderstandings getting spread around.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

@_Deus Absconditus_, rather than fly into a rage, you're welcome to provide us with what you feel...yes feel...are the differences and definitions of Ne and Ni.

*gets comfy and drags out a copy of Psychological Types*


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

I just want to confirm myself before I'm completely sure of my type.

For those of you who have read my posts, do I use Ni or Ne? I believe I use Ni, but I just want to make sure.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Duo said:


> @_Deus Absconditus_, rather than fly into a rage, you're welcome to provide us with what you feel...yes feel...are the differences and definitions of Ne and Ni.
> 
> *gets comfy and drags out a copy of Psychological Types*


Lol isnt that to push polr? haha ;p Ti does feel also you know, it is kinda glitch but ye


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Captain Mclain said:


> Lol isnt that to push polr? haha ;p Ti does feel also you know, it is kinda glitch but ye


Who me? *wide eyes*

Underlying the mischief would be curiosity. If he has some insights to share, why not share them?


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

I just want to confirm myself before I'm completely sure of my type.

For those of you who have read my posts, do I use Ni or Ne? I believe I use Ni, but I just want to make sure.

...anyone?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Duo said:


> Who me? *wide eyes*
> 
> Underlying the mischief would be curiosity. If he has some insights to share, why not share them?


sure, I am always interested what creative Ti have to say ;p


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Duo said:


> @_Deus Absconditus_, rather than fly into a rage, you're welcome to provide us with *what you feel...yes feel*...are the differences and definitions of Ne and Ni.
> 
> *gets comfy and drags out a copy of Psychological Types*


The discussion is on conceptual understandings, not feelings, and is another reason why people are spewing more nonsense. 

Also if you would see the past 2-2 1/2 years worth of posts from me or my previous name Shadow Logic, then you would understand that I have giving novels worth if information that directly relate and explain Jung's concepts, and is the reason why I'm in such raging mode because all that I have brought to these forums has been pointless and fruitless, everybody is still talking about how they feel rather than a conceptual understanding everybody is till confusing each other, everybody is still damaging the already almost completely damaged collective understanding of cognitive functions.

So no, I'm sorry I will not for the +1000 post repeat the same shit I have already repeated for it to go ignored once again, because I realized the fruitlessness of such an act. I'm sorry that I'm fed up on the fact that this forum refuses to reach new heights but rather stay stagnant and never contribute any thing that could help understand the functions for what they are. Im sorry that I won't be discussing what I feel are the differences when we should be discussing what are the conceptual differences in both concepts.


----------



## inregardstomyself (Mar 21, 2014)

emberfly said:


> If you want a great example of an ESFJ, look at Ellen or Hannah Hart.
> 
> If you want a video that shows off Si/Ne in action, you can watch this if you like


Oh goodness
I never understand how people actually enjoy shopping for tedious things like that xD
Maybe I'll get it when I finally start my own home.



Bash said:


> Well, any type can reach any conclusion and most EJ-types like closure.
> 
> What makes you think you are an Fe-dom? I'm not questioning your typing, but simply asking for the sake of triangulation.


Well, your dominant function is the most familiar, right? The one that was expressed first?
If that's so I think Fe-dom is the one I recognize the most, and can see at work in myself right from an early age. I always cared about the external world of people and feelings and whatnot. I'm not always the most stereotypically extroverted person. I'm usually pretty quiet and reserved most times, but I love being right in the midst of all that emotional energy. So I throw myself into social gatherings, not necessarily because I always want to participate (though most times I'm up for it), but because I just like being in that environment. I think my primary method is tending to the emotional needs of others and conserving emotional harmony.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Deus Absconditus said:


> The discussion is on conceptual understandings, not feelings, and is another reason why people are spewing more nonsense.
> 
> Also if you would see the past 2-2 1/2 years worth of posts from me or my previous name Shadow Logic, then you would understand that I have giving novels worth if information that directly relate and explain Jung's concepts, and is the reason why I'm in such raging mode because all that I have brought to these forums has been pointless and fruitless, everybody is still talking about how they feel rather than a conceptual understanding everybody is till confusing each other, everybody is still damaging the already almost completely damaged collective understanding of cognitive functions.
> 
> So no, I'm sorry I will not for the +1000 post repeat the same shit I have already repeated for it to go ignored once again, because I realized the fruitlessness of such an act. I'm sorry that I'm fed up on the fact that this forum refuses to reach new heights but rather stay stagnant and never contribute any thing that could help understand the functions for what they are. Im sorry that I won't be discussing what I feel are the differences when we should be discussing what are the conceptual differences in both concepts.


Since you must recall some key words in your prior posts, perhaps you can link a few of the most important ones. It's a bit unreasonable to expect members to read through 1000+ of your old posts or even know they ever existed. Having been barely around in the first three+ years since join date, I can honestly say that I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Duo said:


> Since you must recall some key words in your prior posts, perhaps you can link a few of the most important ones. *It's a bit unreasonable to expect members to read through 1000+ of your old posts or even know they ever existed. *Having been barely around in the first three+ years since join date, I can honestly say that I have no idea what you're talking about.


Fair point. I will work on gathering those posts for you and others.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

@Deus Absconditus Do you not feel you gain stuffs from writing those posts? I mean you learned loads. And got feedback and stuffs on what you wrote from time to time? :th_o: The only thing that is lacking is the community then hehe and those are not controllable


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Captain Mclain said:


> @Deus Absconditus Do you not feel you gain stuffs from writing those posts? I mean you learned loads. And got feedback and stuffs on what you wrote from time to time? :th_o: The only thing that is lacking is the community then hehe and those are not controllable


It matters if we're talking about cognitive functions or other things that could be learned. Cognitive function wise I think and feel that I have learned nothing from this forum, but I have learned from discussions on those posts the differences in how people think. I have learned that people won't take a definition as is but will alter it to something they can agree with. I have learned that when people try to learn they try to adjust the thing to for in with their preconceived thoughts. I have learned that if you talk about the source that people think you are trying to "appeal to authority". I have learned that if you talk about the functions in a poetic way, whether if its wrong or right, people will automatically think that you know what you are talking about because they are appealed by the poetic tone of speech. 

But if we ask what I have learned about cognitive functions from others on this forum, well then the answer to that is nothing. That's another thing that frustrates me so much, that out of all the discussions that I have had on this subject, nobody else has been able to provide new information or a new thought that I haven't already thought or knew. The closest thing to doing that was socionics, but as for the discussions on this forum, this has never been the case. 

I truly wish this wasn't the case, I truly wish we could move on from the basic concepts along with their differences, and move forward into all the underlying knowledge just waiting to be noticed within the subject. The cognitive functions have so much underlying knowledge and I fear its all going to go to a waste if nobody is willing to truly understand the subject in order to come across these connections and how they be of help to our understanding of not only our selves but the world around us. 

Like come on Ne and Se show that the ability to perceive potential and kinetic energy is built right into the human genome therefore there is a direct connection between Cognitive functions and physics waiting to be explored. Te and Fe have a direct connect to sociology waiting to be explored. Ti and Fi have a direct connection to philosophy waiting to be explored. All of these though are a threat at never been noticed by the general public or even the general collective of intellectuals who can make something of it. What if we could have any answer we wanted, but have been prolonging it by not noticing the potential of the individuals who could do it and giving to them the resources they need to lead them to the answer? What if we could make the world more efficient by making the world better understands themselves? What if we could stop calling everything a disease or disorder and just come to realize that is a personality trait that is useful. What if we could stop demonizing others and and instead understsnd that the person we are demonizing just have traits that are beneficial in their own way even though we may disagree with it? 

This subject has the potential to enlighten the world on its own, fuck religion, fuck spirituality, fuck rituals. This subject alone contains the potential to open the world to a multitude of realities and perspectives unbeknownst to it before, and its at a threat level of burning fire red of never being realized, all of its potential knowledge soon to be lost to the ages. This frustrated me more than the fact that the library of Alexandria was burned down, ransaked, and no longer exists with us today. At least we have the ability now to do something about it, unlike our inability to recover all of the lost knowledge of the old ancient world. 

So yes I have learned many of the things from the discussions on this forum, but nothing that had to do with the point of the forums in the first place, as in I learned nothing new on cognitive functions from these discussions, and if anything the discussions have made the understandings on cognitive functions worse than they were prior.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Deus Absconditus said:


> It matters if we're talking about cognitive functions or other things that could be learned. Cognitive function wise I think and feel that I have learned nothing from this forum, but I have learned from discussions on those posts the differences in how people think. I have learned that people won't take a definition as is but will alter it to something they can agree with. I have learned that when people try to learn they try to adjust the thing to for in with their preconceived thoughts. I have learned that if you talk about the source that people think you are trying to "appeal to authority". I have learned that if you talk about the functions in a poetic way, whether if its wrong or right, people will automatically think that you know what you are talking about because they are appealed by the poetic tone of speech.
> 
> But if we ask what I have learned about cognitive functions from others on this forum, well then the answer to that is nothing. That's another thing that frustrates me so much, that out of all the discussions that I have had on this subject, nobody else has been able to provide new information or a new thought that I haven't already thought or knew. The closest thing to doing that was socionics, but as for the discussions on this forum, this has never been the case.
> 
> ...


I laughed loud *here*. 

You have many solid points. I remember one discussion we had on Ti where I said all introverted functions are useless and you said that they produce New stuffs. I think I have learned some at least. I love the fact you are saying that Se and Ne have correlations with physics but it might also be so that when Jung founded these he knew about physics and was inspired. Im into Se at the moment and there are some magic right there lol. I agree what you are saying about poetic tone ect. A large part of this forum is just social where people do not care at all. It just fun. which is ok. It is an game where everyone cancel each other out. That the forum is open is a strength since it give the possibility of more perspectives. I miss the ability to say that someone is an other type, since it is an insult  which is weird.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Duo, and others

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/389506-ni-eyes-what-does-feels-like-observer-8.html

Post #77, there are other posts from me in that thread that are worth of going over, this particular conversation starts at post #69 to put everything into context. I'm going to continue looking for the most importand and defining posts from me to present, it just takes a while sifting through it all. 



Deus Absconditus said:


> What Ni does is focus on the archetypes, which are patterns of the unconscious. What Ne does is focus on the patterns of the extraverted world.
> 
> Let's look this quote again:
> 
> ...


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

A thread in "guess type" forum called "guess type of forum members", is that allowed? :th_o:

haha.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

creativity is all about making connections between those strands that have never been harmonized, by weaving together those random disjointed threads into a tapestry - forming a complete picture. 

the act of noticing a pattern involves making connections, and both intuition functions (Ni and Ne) are, in essence, pattern-makers. what sort of pattern? well, to Ne, the exterior world is a puzzle with a piece here, and a piece there, and they could be put together to make this, or to make that, since the overall picture to be created by the puzzle pieces is not predefined but rather designed on a creative impulse. to Ni, there is already existing an overall puzzle picture, unknown to oneself, and one's job is to find the solitary pieces and create what could be the single unified whole they are supposed to form, by finding the patterns between them. to Ne, the world is a set of stars that could be joined to form this, or that, or the other constellation. to Ni, the evidence lies scattered everywhere and it is incumbent upon the observer, in order to understand the "real story" behind what is apparent to the eyes, to piece together this evidence on the 'crime scene' to discover the true course of events.

therefore, the world is a set of puzzle pieces - to be connected - to both, they both view the world grasped by the senses through subjunctive eyes, seeing everything in light of what it _could_ be or represent. to Ni, the world is a metaphor with hidden meaning to be understood, a document written in code to be decoded, or a set of behaviors/events to be deciphered, etc.. to Ne, the world is a vast storehouse of Legos - or an endless yard full of building materials - with which to build any invention their minds can conceive, and a world of ideas to be jimmied, toyed with, pried apart, then re-glued together in the shape of new perspectives, etc. 

reality as experienced through the senses is merely an inspiration to interpret or innovate - both _create_ a potential reality based on the actual. they both ask questions about what possibilities could be represented by what they perceive, and it takes creativity to think up all these possibilities. what type of possibilities? well, Ni asks 'what could this possibly _mean_?' in order to discern the hidden plot behind the discoverable evidence, the meaning behind the complicated set/series of actions, the underlying thought at the root of the argument, the origin of the behavior...and thinks through all the many interpretative possibilities its mind involuntarily generates to explain the evidence it has seen, painstakingly pondering, weighing, and sorting through all these possibilities until it can narrow them down to one meaning. an equally creative "random idea generator" powers Ne, as it asks 'what could this become?' and conceives many ideas of what these people could do together, or what could be built from this and that, or how this random medical fact could be applied to curing that disease, or how this new strategy or unique discovery could be used to solve this long-existing problem.

creativity is the act of generating something new. both Ni and Ne are equally creative, since both don't just perceive what _is_, but they generate a collection of ideas of what _could be_, on the basis of what is. one applies its creativity to understanding the world, and the other applies its creativity to changing the world.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Realeros said:


> Hello Personality Cafe,
> 
> I would like to begin a discussion on the difference between Ni and Ne. To begin it, supposedly Ne is much more creative in nature than Ni but is not as connective as it.
> Ni connects ideas to form larger and informed pictures of reality while Ne explores and creates ideas about reality (or a fantasy world).
> ...


Yet that is exactly what you did in your post by indicating one is more or less than the other, don't you think? 

The difference is not along the function itself (intuition), but the attitude of the types (E vs I). 



> *The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established 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 the phenomenon and himself. Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive. To the one just as much as to the other, it is an a problem, a question of perception, a 'sensation'. In this way, the consciousness of his own bodily existence fades from the introverted intuitive's view, as does its effect upon others. The extraverted standpoint would say of him: 'Reality has no existence for him; he gives himself up to fruitless phantasies'. A perception of the unconscious images, produced in such inexhaustible abundance by the creative energy of life, is of course fruitless from the standpoint of immediate utility. But, since these images represent possible ways of viewing life, which in given circumstances have the power to provide a new energic potential, this function, which to the outer world is the strangest of all, is as indispensable to the total psychic economy as is the corresponding human type to the psychic life of a people. Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel*.


Ni like all introverted types, is immune to reality and usually opposes anything outside of their own ideas.


----------



## Realeros (Mar 5, 2015)

I see where the confusion came from: just because I said one was more creative doesn’t mean I was implying one was greater or less than the other. Simply put, I was rehashing what I had learned about the two functions. Here’s a more neutral comparison of the two:

Ne: Inclined toward creativity
Ni: Inclined toward connectivity
And I agree with you that I should have focused on the attitudes.

I still can’t see how Ni is immune to reality …


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Realeros said:


> I see where the confusion came from: just because I said one was more creative doesn’t mean I was implying one was greater or less than the other. Simply put, I was rehashing what I had learned about the two functions. Here’s a more neutral comparison of the two:
> 
> Ne: Inclined toward creativity
> Ni: Inclined toward connectivity
> ...


I wouldn't say immune, but here is Jung's go-to example of a Ni-dom (INTJ) and how far from reality she is:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/181689-tertiary-function-2.html#post4756686


----------



## Realeros (Mar 5, 2015)

Interesting. I can't imagine myself feeling detached from my body as she did. I'm guessing the child was an Ni dom with complete disregard for her other functions? A healthy Ni dom would have a proper sense of their own body along with reality, right?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> I wouldn't say immune, but here is Jung's go-to example of a Ni-dom (INTJ) and how far from reality she is:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/181689-tertiary-function-2.html#post4756686


big creds every time you quote something from Jung. ;p
Anyhow, that example seems to be the most extreme of examples. I do recognize it some, but Se is something of a virtue for me. ;p The living at a brothel not knowing until told. Is that not just perceiving-dom > judging-dom? Must it be specific to Ni


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Could someone please fill these arrows with causality?

Intuition:
introverted---> connectivity
extraverted ---> creativity


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

I find Ni to be a burst, or a setting. Like a preperception of something. ;p Everything at once also works. While Ne is in the moment how everything actually objectively is put together. Ne is ever changing and Ni is kinda crafted to fit reality.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Ni like all introverted types, is immune to reality and usually opposes anything outside of their own ideas.


"immune to reality" implies delusionality...and i doubt that was the meaning you intended. if, by "reality," you mean sensory reality as experienced via Se, Ni-dominant intuitives could _seem _unaware of it, because they may not be directly conscious of it, but their subconscious mind has still gathered and processed Se data. 

their Ni receives its data (as you would call it, "reality") about the external world from their inferior Se. Se perceptions are fed through the subconscious mind (the Ni function is a largely subconscious process) and then the connections/patterns/results drawn subconsciously are fed to the conscious mind as bursts of realization.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

emerald sea said:


> cf. Jung on the unconscious nature of intuition: "Intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extraverted attitude. Because, in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter."


He was talking about extraverted intuition, not intuition as a whole, hence the whole extraverted attitude that he specifically included along with the fact that this is written in the extraverted intuitive description.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Deus Absconditus said:


> He was talking about extraverted intuition, not intuition as a whole, hence the whole extraverted attitude that he specifically included along with the fact that this is written in the extraverted intuitive description.


Just to add to this ^, the quote is literally the first sentence in Jung's Ne description.

Psychological Types - Wikisocion


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Realeros said:


> Interesting. I can't imagine myself feeling detached from my body as she did. I'm guessing the child was an Ni dom with complete disregard for her other functions? A healthy Ni dom would have a proper sense of their own body along with reality, right?


Yes, she was someone with highly developed Ni. I'm not sure about "health." I personally don't like using that term with regards to functions. Regardless, I know people like to think of the functions as having a connection that one feeds the other (although usually S > N, but not the other way around ) but it's more like a see-saw. The more you focus on the content of one function (ie devote psychic energy to) the less there is for the others, especially its opposite.

Let's say you have a 100 piece puzzle and about 50% of it filled in. Your intuition can fill in the gap and let you see the whole picture. Now let's take this girl, who probably only has about 5 or 10% of the reality puzzle complete. Maybe only one or none of those pieces reflects a part of her body. So she never "sees" it.



Captain Mclain said:


> big creds every time you quote something from Jung. ;p
> Anyhow, that example seems to be the most extreme of examples. I do recognize it some, but Se is something of a virtue for me. ;p The living at a brothel not knowing until told. Is that not just perceiving-dom > judging-dom? Must it be specific to Ni


See my puzzle example above.

What's interesting about the perception functions is that Ni is the only one not directly tied to reality in some way. Ne is dependent upon it through 'e', Si through 'S' and Se is a double dose of reality.

But to your point, there is some merit. Here is a relevant quote from Jung's Se description:



> As an irrational function, sensation is equally repressed, whenever a rational function, thinking or feeling, possesses the priority, ie. it can be said to have a conscious function, only in so far as the rational attitude of consciousness permits accidental perceptions to become conscious contents; in short, realizes them.


----------



## emerald sea (Jun 4, 2011)

Deus Absconditus said:


> He was talking about extraverted intuition, not intuition as a whole, hence the whole extraverted attitude that he specifically includ along with the fact that this is written in the extraverted intuitive description.


he provided a quote about extroverted intuition, then his comment below the quote was about Ni specifically. read his post. 

i quoted Jung about intuition as a whole. yes, @_PaladinX_, what i quoted _is_ part of the introduction paragraph about intuition, and the paragraph immediately following it starts in on specifically describing extroverted intuition, but you will note that he is speaking generically about intuition as a whole before launching into defining Ne in particular. 

you will find elsewhere in Jung's writings, quoted below (as well as in the writings of Leona Haas and Mark Hunziker, and other authorities on cognitive functions) that Ni is largely subconscious in function also, and that it derives its data from the external environment indirectly as a perception of the inner image corresponding to the external reality...so i am not attributing to Jung an understanding of Ni that he did not have, nor to Ni a quality that it is not widely agreed to have. 

cf. Jung specifically speaking about introverted intuition:



> Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function. Like sensation, intuition also has its subjective factor, which is suppressed to the farthest limit in the extraverted intuition, but which becomes the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.



and - to go back to the first point of my post as well, which seems to have been ignored - significant detachment from reality clinically defines an individual as mentally ill. if today you say that someone is "immune to reality," please realize you are implying that they are mentally ill. all we intuitives appreciate the 'compliment' that we are insane. 

and - for anyone who doesn't wish to wade through Jung's "thick" writings about cognitive functions, who would prefer clear, simple explanations, i'd highly recommend the book Building Blocks of Personality by Leona Haas and Mark Hunziker. whether you agree with the book in its entirety or not, i have not found any better, clearer, more thorough explanation of the meaning of each cognitive function anywhere. 

also, if you want to see the correlation between use of various brain regions and Jungian cognitive functions, read Dr. Dario Nardi's book Neuroscience of Personality - it clearly describes how the exact same regions of the brain are heavily used by both Ne and Ni, and how both are holistic (using many regions of the brain at once) and novel (a.k.a. creative) in their way of thinking. neurologically speaking, neither Ne nor Ni could be said to be more creative than the other; both are equally creative - they just vary in the way they_ apply_ their creativity.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

emerald sea said:


> he provided a quote about extroverted intuition, then his comment below the quote was about Ni specifically. read his post.
> 
> i quoted Jung about intuition as a whole. yes, @_PaladinX_, what i quoted _is_ part of the introduction paragraph about intuition, and the paragraph immediately following it starts in on specifically describing extroverted intuition, but you will note that he is speaking generically about intuition as a whole before launching into defining Ne in particular.


To clear up the matter, here is the same passage from Jung's revised version of Psychological Types:



> In the extraverted attitude, intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly directed to external objects. Because intuition is in the main an unconscious process, its nature is very difficult to grasp. The intuitive function is represented in consciousness by an attitude of expectancy, by vision and penetration; but only from the subsequent result can it be established how much of what was "seen" was actually in the object, and how much was "read into" it.


- Collected Works of C.G. Jung Volume 6 - Psychological Types, Pg 366 Par 610


----------

