# Another example of Ni vs Ne



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

Ni:

Imagine every possibility reduced to single point like a black hole(converge)












Ne:

Imagine that from a single point, lots of possibilities like the big bang(diverge)


----------



## deftonePassenger (Jun 18, 2012)

Would you say that Ni uses more convergent thinking and that Ne uses more divergent thinking?


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

deftonePassenger said:


> Would you say that Ni uses more convergent thinking and that Ne uses more divergent thinking?


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying


----------



## deftonePassenger (Jun 18, 2012)

Gnothi Seauton said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying


Ni is cool


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

deftonePassenger said:


> Ni is cool


How so?


----------



## UniversalTruth (Dec 27, 2013)

I agree with you both and these concepts align with Ni=Anticipation; Ne=Surprise.

As all possibilities converge, one becomes more confident of the future, anticipation grows, and in the extreme of all possibilities converged to one, anticipation is maximized and one believes an event will certainly happen even though it's in the future.

When an unexpected event occurs, it has violated prior beliefs, thus one must look outward to new ideas in order to explain it. The more severely it violates prior beliefs the further one may have to look to explain it. Thus, increasing surprise leads to increasingly divergent possibilities to consider in order to explain the unexpected event.


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

UniversalTruth said:


> I agree with you both and these concepts align with Ni=Anticipation; Ne=Surprise.
> 
> As all possibilities converge, one becomes more confident of the future, anticipation grows, and in the extreme of all possibilities converged to one, anticipation is maximized and one believes an event will certainly happen even though it's in the future.
> 
> When an unexpected event occurs, it has violated prior beliefs, thus one must look outward to new ideas in order to explain it, the more severely it violates prior beliefs the further one may have to look to explain it. Thus, increasing surprise leads to increasingly divergent possibilities to consider in order to explain the unexpected event.


To add to what you're saying, unlike many popular views, Ni does need external stimulus. Otherwise the amount of possibilities being converged will be limited and the strength of the prediction flawed. That's why it's pertinent for an Ni user to get as much external perceiving(Se) to get an accurate picture of what's going on. Have you ever witnessed an INJ coming to awfully wrong conclusions? It's probably because that individual lacked Se. The more Se you add to the mix, the stronger Ni will become.

Ne can basically run on itself. In fact, each possibility that is derived from a point can create new 'big bangs' ad infinitum. In this case, Ne needs the help of Si to appreciate the concreteness of the object it has Ne-fied, otherwise you would basically have an individual too absorbed in the possibilities to come to any kind of conclusion. Si grounds the Ne user for its judging function to judge correctly.


----------



## Alaya (Nov 11, 2009)

The misconception that Ni arrives at conclusions serendipitous is probably the reason many claim it's mystical or mysterious since it's happening independently of external influence. While it is true that the process of Ni happens internally, the insight or 'aha' eureka comes as a result of what Se gathered that allowed the convergence to happen in the first place which furthermore allowed the insight to be reached in the end.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

That black hole terrifies me the more I look at it. I mean, _how_. :angry:

I like the example anyway! It's easy to visualize it all in my mind.


----------



## DeepenThought (Jan 30, 2014)

> Have you ever witnessed an INJ coming to awfully wrong conclusions?


At one time, this was the story of my life. I still have to do these mental checks (Se) from time to time when I get worked up.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Gnothi Seauton said:


> To add to what you're saying, unlike many popular views, Ni does need external stimulus. Otherwise the amount of possibilities being converged will be limited and the strength of the prediction flawed. That's why it's pertinent for an Ni user to get as much external perceiving(Se) to get an accurate picture of what's going on. Have you ever witnessed an INJ coming to awfully wrong conclusions? It's probably because that individual lacked Se. The more Se you add to the mix, the stronger Ni will become.
> 
> Ne can basically run on itself. In fact, each possibility that is derived from a point can create new 'big bangs' ad infinitum. In this case, Ne needs the help of Si to appreciate the concreteness of the object it has Ne-fied, otherwise you would basically have an individual too absorbed in the possibilities to come to any kind of conclusion. Si grounds the Ne user for its judging function to judge correctly.


I think it's because the underlying "mechanism" of Ne and Ni is identical....namely N. We are each conditioned to use it in one polarity. There _should_ be symmetry between both aspects of N. 

With this in mind, I think Ne-(Ti-Si) basically adds up to a sort of pseudo-Ni. 

Occasionally I'll have an instant "hunch" about something that I'm -sure- is correct. It's like I can shortcut the Ti analysis because Si jumps in and reminds me that I have seen this pattern before....even though I have not seen the identical situation, although my Ti usually causes me to pause before acting. I -know- it's right, but I still have to check. Untrusting Ti, lol. 

Do you have a similar Ne experience from Ni-(Te-Se).....all that extraverting causes one of the Ni archetypes to suddenly (surprisingly) expand?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

The analogy I used is that there is a thread connecting everything. When you grab that thread and pull, everything unravels and merges into one. 

Ni wants to enclose things. 

Another analogy is sheep herding. Ideas and situations are sheep. My goal is enclose all the sheep. All the sheep in area. All the stimuli. Isolate it. Get them all boxed in, so they can be assessed and counted. Ne would prefer to let the herd flow. My first priority is boxing in all the sheep. Cornering them, so they can't escape. I cannot begin working until I make sure I have all the sheep caged in. Order first. 

First thing I like to do is establish the boundaries of a problem. Where it ends, and another begins. So I stake out the borders, and slowly collapse those borders until the problem is crushed. I start at the boundaries, and simplify, simplify, simplify..


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

I still find it really difficult to see any coherent connection between these convergent and divergent features and the introversion/extraversion of intuition. They actually seem to be completely inherited from the behavioral J (convergent) and P(divergent) features... which has nothing to do with introversion and extraversion essentially.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

zazara said:


> That black hole terrifies me the more I look at it. I mean, _how_. :angry:


Good God, I know! I looked at that picture and just felt my stomach plunge....then I got distracted by looking at the other stars and stuff. :laughing:


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Question: Is it Ni when you know what someone will say, or what word they will pick at a hesitation point, before they say it? It seems like the 'black hole'; taking a ton of speech information and isolating a certain pattern, enabling a mostly accurate prediction? I get it wrong about 25% of the time, don't get me wrong.


----------



## Urameshi (Jan 30, 2014)

Kollenhausen said:


> Question: Is it Ni when you know what someone will say, or what word they will pick at a hesitation point, before they say it? It seems like the 'black hole'; taking a ton of speech information and isolating a certain pattern, enabling a mostly accurate prediction? I get it wrong about 25% of the time, don't get me wrong.


I don't know if it is exclusively Ni, for I'm an Ne-dom and I definitely can predict what people are going to say or trying to say in hesitation points or just in general. 

Not necessarily the precise word they will use, but the general idea of where they are going / the underlying themes behind their direction of speech.

Furthermore, I'm not sure I like this analogy. As an Ne-user, I find I'm pretty good at narrowing down my possibilities to one definite pathway. This may be the work of Ti in conjunction to Ne, not sure.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The analogy I used is that there is a thread connecting everything. When you grab that thread and pull, everything unravels and merges into one.
> 
> Ni wants to enclose things.
> 
> ...


I like this analogy, I just want to perfect it so people have a clearer understanding. For an Ni user, you create your boundaries to assess and box in. For an Ne user, the reason we let the heard flow because that in of itself is the boundary. Life itself is already boxed in so the Ne user likes to see life itself in its most natural form with no interruptions besides the interruptions that nature causes. 

By seeing the herd flow the Ne user picks up on all the possibilities about the flow of the herd and where it can lead. By boxing in the herd, the Ni user can assess and situate the herd.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Kollenhausen said:


> Question: Is it Ni when you know what someone will say, or what word they will pick at a hesitation point, before they say it? It seems like the 'black hole'; taking a ton of speech information and isolating a certain pattern, enabling a mostly accurate prediction? I get it wrong about 25% of the time, don't get me wrong.


I finish people's sentences all the time. To the point of annoyance, probably. It's just that I am impatient, I know what they are going to say, and they are taking forever to say it. Or, I just stop them and explain to them what they were trying to explain to me. Obviously, there is a Ti aspect here, but...

The reason I can do this is because when people speak, my mind pushes the stuff away to get at the ... uh... point, the core concept of all the stuff being said. Like, someone will start with an analogy, and my mind will just spin about for a second and reach into likely speculations to reverse engineer, from the conversation thus far, previous experience, etc, etc, what their main ultimate goal or point or whatever, is. What it is all getting at. Big picture, I guess. The essence... the soul of the matter. Devoid of all that stuff. Once I know that, which is usually pretty quickly, I become instantly and incurably bored with the process they have chosen to convey it. They think they need to explain it to me as they would a person, but they don't. I'd rather guess, and though I am occasionally wrong, it is not often enough to waste all the time I'd have to waste when I already know what they are getting at.

This, of course, speaks to what @azdahak was saying about Ti/Ne/Si emulating what we might see as Ni. It isn't Ni, at all. In my experience, Ni is not as quick as Ne in this way. It requires a certain objectivity that Ni lacks. Ni seems to be more interested, more adept, at comprehending what the speaker DIDN'T mean to convey. What was hidden in the situation, rather than what was waiting to be revealed.

That is why I often like to use the word 'gist' in association with Ne. Ne gets the 'gist'. The objective essence .. the conceptual pattern behind what the stuff that is being said, in broad strokes. 

Ni seems (to me) to invent a subjective interpretation rather than quickly extrapolating the conceptual 'gist'. Their interpretation is, quite literally, not objective. Or agile. 

I personally find it a somewhat arduous process to explain things to an Ni. They don't pick it up fast. HOWEVER, while you are slogging through that process, you find that they are slowly and precisely refining your comprehension of that nature that you quickly got the 'gist' of... and in the end, I realize it is not so much that they are slow to pick up on the nature of something, but that they are exacting and careful and hold close to the ego that interpretation. They are slow to comprehend, not through lack of power to comprehend, but being unable/unwilling to comprehend in half-measures. For an Ne, 'enough' is enough, but not for Ni. 

@Gnothi Seauton - the trouble I have with these examples is when I try to apply them to Se and Si. Call me a purist, but a system should be elegant. I think that true systems always prove to be. How could these images and the ideas they convey be used to represent the differences between Se and Si? Shouldn't it be that Pi is a black hole and Pe is a big bang?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I finish people's sentences all the time. To the point of annoyance, probably. It's just that I am impatient, I know what they are going to say, and they are taking forever to say it. Or, I just stop them and explain to them what they were trying to explain to me. Obviously, there is a Ti aspect here, but...
> 
> The reason I can do this is because when people speak, my mind pushes the stuff away to get at the ... uh... point, the core concept of all the stuff being said. Like, someone will start with an analogy, and my mind will just spin about for a second and reach into likely speculations to reverse engineer, from the conversation thus far, previous experience, etc, etc, what their main ultimate goal or point or whatever, is. What it is all getting at. Big picture, I guess. The essence... the soul of the matter. Devoid of all that stuff. Once I know that, which is usually pretty quickly, I become instantly and incurably bored with the process they have chosen to convey it. They think they need to explain it to me as they would a person, but they don't. I'd rather guess, and though I am occasionally wrong, it is not often enough to waste all the time I'd have to waste when I already know what they are getting at.
> 
> ...


I think impression of "speed" is subjective alone, in this case. I think Ne types are as "slow" too and have issues getting to the point because what is the point of all this "what if" speculation? None, thus far. A point I didn't already comprehend when they begun speaking. Comprehension speed or ability to comprehend is probably more linked with overall intelligence than it is cognitive functions, in my opinion. I bet there are Ne types thick as rocks out there even you would feel frustrated with because they are so slow on picking up on ideas, just as there are Ni types that are as slow for sure.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

arkigos said:


> I finish people's sentences all the time. To the point of annoyance, probably. It's just that I am impatient, I know what they are going to say, and they are taking forever to say it. Or, I just stop them and explain to them what they were trying to explain to me. Obviously, there is a Ti aspect here, but...?


I didn't say I finish people's sentences; I almost never do that. It's just that I think 'next word or phrase', and then they say it (or not). But I don't interrupt them because I might be wrong, and it will throw them off.



arkigos said:


> The reason I can do this is because when people speak, my mind pushes the stuff away to get at the ... uh... point, the core concept of all the stuff being said. Like, someone will start with an analogy, and my mind will just spin about for a second and reach into likely speculations to reverse engineer, from the conversation thus far, previous experience, etc, etc, what their main ultimate goal or point or whatever, is. What it is all getting at. Big picture, I guess. The essence... the soul of the matter. Devoid of all that stuff. Once I know that, which is usually pretty quickly, I become instantly and incurably bored with the process they have chosen to convey it. They think they need to explain it to me as they would a person, but they don't. I'd rather guess, and though I am occasionally wrong, it is not often enough to waste all the time I'd have to waste when I already know what they are getting at.?


I guess I think about it this way sometimes, if what they are saying is really interesting and totally new to me, but generally I don't assume that I have grasped it.



arkigos said:


> This, of course, speaks to what @azdahak was saying about Ti/Ne/Si emulating what we might see as Ni. It isn't Ni, at all. In my experience, Ni is not as quick as Ne in this way. It requires a certain objectivity that Ni lacks. Ni seems to be more interested, more adept, at comprehending what the speaker DIDN'T mean to convey. What was hidden in the situation, rather than what was waiting to be revealed.
> 
> That is why I often like to use the word 'gist' in association with Ne. Ne gets the 'gist'. The objective essence .. the conceptual pattern behind what the stuff that is being said, in broad strokes.
> 
> Ni seems (to me) to invent a subjective interpretation rather than quickly extrapolating the conceptual 'gist'. Their interpretation is, quite literally, not objective. Or agile. ?


So, for example, let's say that I was having a short conversation with 'Jane', an casual acquaintance, at a social event. She said something about a book, and then I realized I thought something similar, and so we talk about it for a bit in an energetic exchange that flows well. I would view that conversation mostly according to your Ne model; I would be passionately interested in what her concept of the book was as opposed to mine. And, I would want to see where we differed. However, I would also be tracking 'Jane''s taste, so to speak, in the conversation. I would be able to learn something about her personally from her literary opinions (or I would think that I could, lol).

Let's further suppose that there is a third person present, 'John', an acquaintance but not a good friend. He remains silent throughout the exchange I am having with the other person, except that occasionally he might break in with a slightly discordant remark about the book that doesn't quite 'gel' with the flow of the conversation.Then, suppose that that conversation ends because 'Jane' has to go.

Now, 'John' and I are sitting relatively 'alone' (no one else in interaction range). I know that he was 'excluded' from the previous conversation because I was too interested in 'Jane' to want to ask 'John' his opinion. Ordinarily, I will be able to expect 'John', since he didn't just leave and go somewhere else, to put in some kind of a remark about all the sophisticated books he reads, if he doesn't know anything really about the book 'Jane' and I were discussing, or, if he does really know something about it, he will give a 'sophisticated' opinion.

Basically, although it depends on the person, 'John' will be feeling either that his opinion/ he himself is not as interesting to me as 'Jane's, or, if he doesn't know much about books, he will be more concerned to defend his intellectual reputation. Many people, especially those who don't like to read, see reading a certain type of book as a mark of 'intelligence'.

This is assuming that he himself has no especial interest in talking to 'Jane'; if he focused on her instead of me his behavior would be much different.

The above outlined situation is what I think of as the 'person anxious to be reassured of self-worth' scenario. This happens all the time when I talk to people, in many different guises. However, the underlying motivation of this person's conversation remains constant. I react to them in different ways, but generally I 'fix' their self-esteem by listening to often very uninspired remarks. This is especially true if the person is the 'don't like to read' person; I just remembered that another way they can react if there is no 'Jane' present (so, it would just be me reading, or talking about reading) is to talk about how they don't like to read much (regretfully), but they are trying to read more. 

In that scenario, I invariably talk about how reading novels is actually a waste of time, pointless, etc. I don't really believe it, and they don't really believe it, but it is the best way to 'clean things up'.



arkigos said:


> I personally find it a somewhat arduous process to explain things to an Ni. They don't pick it up fast. HOWEVER, while you are slogging through that process, you find that they are slowly and precisely refining your comprehension of that nature that you quickly got the 'gist' of... and in the end, I realize it is not so much that they are slow to pick up on the nature of something, but that they are exacting and careful and hold close to the ego that interpretation. They are slow to comprehend, not through lack of power to comprehend, but being unable/unwilling to comprehend in half-measures. For an Ne, 'enough' is enough, but not for Ni. ?


Yeah, do you see an Ni as being the kind of person who asks lots of clarification questions, trying to hone down to a point exactly what you meant? That's definitely me. I'm sometimes very wary of not getting the point the person is trying to make.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Is a Ne user the type of person that comes up with ideas but doesn't necessarily have any intention of following through? 
Which would make Ni the opposite of that (if an idea is proposed, they look for ways to make it happen). 

Or is this not a Ne vs Ni at all?


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> That is why I often like to use the word 'gist' in association with Ne. Ne gets the 'gist'. The objective essence .. the conceptual pattern behind what the stuff that is being said, in broad strokes.
> 
> Ni seems (to me) to invent a subjective interpretation rather than quickly extrapolating the conceptual 'gist'. Their interpretation is, quite literally, not objective. Or agile.


Define Objective and subjective in this context. If we examine scientific research, philosophical inquiry, academia, especially the Jungian Cognitive functions (as in the way Jung himself defined Objective / Subjective), there are nuances in terms of definition. Considering this and other posts of yours you almost seem to be claiming a sort of perceptual / interpretive superiority when it comes to Ne. Not in the egotistical sense, but in the sense that Ne is more exacting and penetrating when it comes to recognizing the nature of a thing / truth.



> I personally find it a somewhat arduous process to explain things to an Ni. They don't pick it up fast. HOWEVER, while you are slogging through that process, you find that they are slowly and precisely refining your comprehension of that nature that you quickly got the 'gist' of... and in the end, I realize it is not so much that they are slow to pick up on the nature of something, but that they are exacting and careful and hold close to the ego that interpretation. They are slow to comprehend, not through lack of power to comprehend, but being unable/unwilling to comprehend in half-measures. For an Ne, 'enough' is enough, but not for Ni.


Give a specific example. A specific and real conversation, observation, or anything else that has lead you to this conclusion.

So far as observation of the function itself, my own use of it, observation of it's use in others, my studies of supposed Ni dom/aux users, they are anything but slow in grasping the underlying nature of 'things.' It is not exacting, slow, or precise, if anything that sounds like *Ti*. 

Ni engages in perceptual leaps, it takes on a paradigm and then abandons it once it has served it's purpose, and quickly jumps to the end of a line of thought, idea, and etc. Hence the reason we cannot explain why we know things, or how we have come to our conclusions without input from Te or Fe. 

I think in nothing but half measures. I don't start exacting or refining until my Te empiricism kicks in. 

I've seen Ni and Ne (respectively) described as Teleportation and super speed which I find fitting.

I also...fail to see the role that speed plays in determining Ni or Ne. _perception_ of time, sure, but not speed at which an idea, thought, or etc. is comprehended. That is influenced by many factors, background, education level, communication skills, even environmental factors. This whole direction of thought strikes me as irrelevant in terms of adequately describing the nature of the two functions themselves.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Is a Ne user the type of person that comes up with ideas but doesn't necessarily have any intention of following through?
> Which would make Ni the opposite of that (if an idea is proposed, they look for ways to make it happen).
> 
> Or is this not a Ne vs Ni at all?


Judging function plays a huge role in whether or not an idea is acted upon. For example because Ni is often paired with Te or Fe, literal action ends up being taken especially if the judging function is Te. 

Ti typically does not take literal action.

Maybe intent is born from the axis. (dom+aux function)


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

azdahak said:


> I think it's because the underlying "mechanism" of Ne and Ni is identical....namely N. We are each conditioned to use it in one polarity. There _should_ be symmetry between both aspects of N.
> 
> With this in mind, I think Ne-(Ti-Si) basically adds up to a sort of pseudo-Ni.
> 
> ...


How accurate are the hunches? As in how often was your hunch correct?


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Octavian said:


> Judging function plays a huge role in whether or not an idea is acted upon. For example because Ni is often paired with Te or Fe, literal action ends up being taken especially if the judging function is Te.
> 
> Ti typically does not take literal action.
> 
> Maybe intent is born from the axis. (dom+aux function)


But I'm not a judger and I take action when someone comes up with an idea. If it's not Ni, is it Ti then maybe? or Se?


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> But I'm not a judger and I take action when someone comes up with an idea. If it's not Ni, is it Ti then maybe? or Se?


I'm on mobile so I wasn't able to see your type as I replied.

I don't think functions drive literal action per se, I think they determine intent. Ni-Te intends to form contingencies and act out plans. Te-Ni intends to be proactive and to plan as it goes. Ti-Ne intends to make judgements and framework it's ideas, logical arguments, etc. etc. I don't think action should be seen as caused by specific functions, functions after all, simply perceive and judge.

You use Ni in the tertiary slot so you wont experience it in the same way that dom/aux Ni users do. I'm not familiar enough with ISTP to theorize but:

Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Aspects in the Valued Functions by Dmitry Golihov

Near the bottom read "Ni as a mobilizing function."


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Octavian said:


> I also...fail to see the role that speed plays in determining Ni or Ne. _perception_ of time, sure, but not speed at which an idea, thought, or etc. is comprehended. That is influenced by many factors, background, education level, communication skills, even environmental factors. This whole direction of thought strikes me as irrelevant in terms of adequately describing the nature of the two functions themselves.


I see where you are going with this, but I think there may be some credence to what he is saying. If he doesn't use Ni, then his perceptions will be based on observations of people he has identified, rightly or wrongly, as Ni users.

Ni does (as I understand it) seize the 'main idea' fast, but that may not appear to be the case if you are looking from the outside. In particular, I generally think I have the 'idea', but I am not confident that I fully understand it. So, (I think) I often try to repeat back to a person what they said in my own words, or I extend it to something else, and say 'so you're saying...'. I like to be very sure that I am 'getting it'... generally I am, but not always.

Would this understanding of what he is saying make more sense to you? Taking his comments to be those of an observer?

Anyway, just my two cents... It's always possible I am not an Ni user, and if so my experience wouldn't make sense...


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Octavian said:


> I'm on mobile so I wasn't able to see your type as I replied.
> 
> I don't think functions drive literal action per se, I think they determine intent. Ni-Te intends to form contingencies and act out plans. Te-Ni intends to be proactive and to plan as it goes. Ti-Ne intends to make judgements and framework it's ideas, logical arguments, etc. etc. I don't think action should be seen as caused by specific functions, functions after all, simply perceive and judge.
> 
> ...


Too much reading, I can't handle it. 

I was actually referring to the INTENT of taking action rather then the actual TAKING ACTION. I just said it wrong. 


Do the functions work differently on different personality types (Te works different on an ENFP then an ESTJ?) or do they work the same, just more often or less often depending on where they are placed?

For example, ISTPs and INFJs have the same functions but in different orders. I can relate to INFJs very much (seems like we are the same people), only they use Fe more then I do and less Se. 

Can we break down the functions individually or are they always connected to other functions?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

First of all, it's worth noting that @_ephemereality_, @_Kollenhausen_, @_Octavian_ and even @_Life.Is.A.Game_ are doing this 'hold it at arms length' 'slowness' that I feel is characteristic of Ni.

Perhaps I was confusing in mentioning that I see Ni as being slow... but, what I said following that up was meant to express that such an impression was WRONG. Clearly, Ni is not failing to comprehend... or even slow to comprehend... but that it pushes me to arms length, and turns it's head, almost as if it takes my suggestion and looks into a bag somewhere, to see if it's there. Turns away from me, away from the brainstorm, away from the free induction, away from humoring me or 'riffing' or 'gisting' and looks into some black hole to see if it's there. That is an odd analogy but I don't have a better one. 

It is exacting in that way. Ni sees it internally, in that black hole, or it shrugs it off as illusion. You can see how Ne could ERRONEOUSLY see this as 'slow'. We are trying to explain the essence of something, and the Ni recedes, questions, hesitates... they say they aren't getting it. Perhaps they respect me enough to assume that there may indeed be something there... but, it isn't resonating for them, there is no epiphany, no signal back from the black hole ... and thus they cannot / will not accept it. 
@_Octavian_, this isn't like Ti because Ti, while impression-based in a sense, is also fully rational. It's a decision. Ni/Ne is just SEEING, which I state as comprehension... but I could see how that is insufficient. Is there a better word? 

You say Ni is perceptual leaps, sure, but what I mean is when someone else comes up to you and offers their perceptual leap.... and tries to resonate it to you, to get you grasp it. Ne will quickly extrapolate the 'gist' of it and induct it... this is a quick process. It thus often appears that an Ne grasps things very quickly, almost off-handedly. But that is because they perceive it in .... like a torrent or a stream (as in video files). 

Ne is superior in the same sense as, say, Te is to Ti. It is a more face-value, objective, applicable, agile, perception. It also has all the relative failings that any extraverted function has.... too transient, too inductive, too co-dependent. Too quick. There is definitely such a thing as too quick.... too willing to move forward with a snap perception.

Examples? Yes, teaching programming to an ENFP and an INFJ. The way I explain programming is very N oriented. I explain the abstract concepts behind it and just assume that once that is in place, the mechanical aspect will come into view. First, for the ENFP this was the best way to do it. For the INFJ, it was frustrating... all the concepts made sense enough but they needed to get their hands on it to see the mechanisms in action to understand it. That seemed odd for a Ti, so it caught my attention. The ENFP was rather the opposite. The concept they got pretty much instantly, the ideas behind it all registered immediately. How to operate it was both unnecessary and kind of uninteresting to them. I had the exact experience with an INFP explaining it. The reason I give NFP examples, is to avoid a Ti conflation. NJs are hard to explain programming concepts to. Flat out difficult, because they seem to approach it holistically... as if they fully grasp it or they almost seem (especially for NFJ) self-conscious about it. Afraid of getting it wrong? Afraid of being caught seeing untruly? 

There is no such self-consciousness for the Ne. At all. I've done this with a fair number of people, and the Ne all 'gist' quickly, and operate confidently from that... and all the Ni are slow and exacting as hell... asking for 'specific examples' or for me to explain it in another way, or picking at this, or adjusting that... like they are curating my comprehension of something they themselves claim not to comprehend. The thing is, I suspect they DO comprehend it as much as, say, the ENFP, but they don't see that as comprehension. They see it as a 'gist' and hesitate.

@_Kollenhausen_ - that example you gave felt very NFJ to me, first of all, in its very existence and thrust. Most of what you were getting at was specifically Fe. That dance of sophistication and what books you've read or whatever. I don't know. Fe and probably Ni? 

I don't really read. I don't think that Ne types think that way on the whole, though an ENTP might, due to Fe. I don't know. 
@_ephemereality_ - whether or not the mechanism is successful, I still think that is how it is done. That I insinuate that the comprehension is successful should be decoupled somewhat. Intelligence, of course, does have its say, and can screw with this a bit... however, I think that the essentials remain true. A really really dumb Ne will still operate the same, and 'get it' quickly and objectively... but disappointing in the robustness? A 'slow' ENTP doesn't exist, I think... though stupid ones do.

The same clarification to @_Octavian_ - it isn't that Ne understands faster, but that they consider the 'gist' to be a comprehension, and it's objectivity and agility make it more able to develop in real time. It is less that Ne comprehends more easily but that the definition the scope and prerequisite of comprehension is fundamentally different for Ne vs Ni.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

@arkigos 

You're the first person who was able to make me understand the difference between Ne and Ni. I totally get what you mean about Ni being "slow" at understand something. I have to understand the whole concept of it, not just hear the "gist" of it. Ne seem to get quite bored when I try explaining something, they "get it" , which annoys me because I know they "get the gist of it" but THERE's MORE TO IT DAMMIT!! lol . 

I didn't know that was Ni vs Ne, it totally makes sense that it is though. I think you did a fabulous job at explaining it simply without too much theory. 

Thanks!!


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

arkigos said:


> Examples? Yes, teaching programming to an ENFP and an ENFJ. The way I explain programming is very N oriented. I explain the abstract concepts behind it and just assume that once that is in place, the mechanical aspect will come into view. First, for the ENFP this was the best way to do it. For the INFJ, it was frustrating... all the concepts made sense enough but they needed to get their hands on it to see the mechanisms in action to understand it. That seemed odd for a Ti, so it caught my attention. The ENFP was rather the opposite. The concept they got pretty much instantly, the ideas behind it all registered immediately. How to operate it was both unnecessary and kind of uninteresting to them. I had the exact experience with an INFP explaining it. The reason I give NFP examples, is to avoid a Ti conflation. NJs are hard to explain programming concepts to. Flat out difficult, because they seem to approach it holistically... as if they fully grasp it or they almost seem (especially for NFJ) self-conscious about it. Afraid of getting it wrong? Afraid of being caught seeing untruly?


This is a very elegant example; you did a good job here. The vague abstract stuff is good up to a point, but it is good to see specifics because that is a much better way to go about convincing us that your understanding could actually work out that way in real life. It's too easy for some people to hide behind technical language such that you aren't sure if they really know something, or if they are totally off.

As for the NFJ, I think that makes sense. Yes, I don't think of it as 'seeing' so much even though you are using that term; it's more like "Do I get it? Am I really understanding? And if so, what about this and this and this case?" I absolutely will make you baby-step me through stuff if you are willing to do it; if you aren't there, then I will figure it out myself because I don't have you as a resource to 'proof-read' my understanding for me. I like to get it absolutely and beyond doubt right.



arkigos said:


> There is no such self-consciousness for the Ne. At all. I've done this with a fair number of people, and the Ne all 'gist' quickly, and operate confidently from that... and all the Ni are slow and exacting as hell... asking for 'specific examples' or for me to explain it in another way, or picking at this, or adjusting that... like they are curating my comprehension of something they themselves claim not to comprehend. The thing is, I suspect they DO comprehend it as much as, say, the ENFP, but they don't see that as comprehension. They see it as a 'gist' and hesitate.


Yes, exactly. I see that my understanding is probably correct, but you (the instructor) are standing right there; why should I say "I got it" when maybe I don't? And also, to use the 'point' analogy, you just handed me a fuzzy understanding. I can sharpen it on my own, or I can have you sharpen it for me. You have the experience; why should I do the sharpening? 



arkigos said:


> @_Kollenhausen_ - that example you gave felt very NFJ to me, first of all, in its very existence and thrust. Most of what you were getting at was specifically Fe. That dance of sophistication and what books you've read or whatever. I don't know. Fe and probably Ni?


Yes, I was thinking along those lines. I didn't want you to stick to an INTJ Ni experience because if you can't translate your concept into the INFJ Ni experience, then you aren't really talking about Ni as a whole. See what I mean?

But I don't think my example had enough developed Ni in it; you're right that it is mostly Fe. I don't have a better example, but I think you need to be able to make your example work for information taken in through Fe as well as Te. If that makes sense, and if I'm understanding the feedback loop correctly...


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> I see where you are going with this, but I think there may be some credence to what he is saying. If he doesn't use Ni, then his perceptions will be based on observations of people he has identified, rightly or wrongly, as Ni users.
> 
> Ni does (as I understand it) seize the 'main idea' fast, but that may not appear to be the case if you are looking from the outside. In particular, I generally think I have the 'idea', but I am not confident that I fully understand it. So, (I think) I often try to repeat back to a person what they said in my own words, or I extend it to something else, and say 'so you're saying...'. I like to be very sure that I am 'getting it'... generally I am, but not always.
> 
> ...




This makes more sense to me. If this was the line of thought that he was getting at, he either expressed it poorly or I'm bad at interpretation. 



> I often try to repeat back to a person what they said in my own words, or I extend it to something else, and say 'so you're saying...'.


I do this as well. Internally I am forming connections, generating implications, and quite often, forseeing consequences or benefits of ideas / routes of actions expressed to me. I do not share them in their raw Ni state. 90% of the time I don't share it at all. My primary concern is to feed my Ni through Se, and Te analysis. So while an individual can hang onto my every word and question, they cannot by any means, adequately measure or deduce the specific workings of my internal Ni processing, unless I share it explicitly. Something that I and many other dom/aux Ni users, are incapable of doing.

I can agree with an idea, go through an entire conversation, and not even state or *seem* to agree with it (and I have done this many times.) 

The point I'm getting at, Ne often comes up with convoluted perceptions / definitions of Ni based in either loose observation, or extrapolation from online descriptions and dom/aux Ni-user forum posts. Needless to say, just by looking around, they tend to be off. There are exceptions of course.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Introverted functions want the personalized experience. Another person's perception or judgment is irreverent to the introverted function. Ni wants to gain the data itself so it can extract the information it deems important. Someone else's experience doesn't provide the right impressions that it needs to function. It questions certain things hoping to fill in the blanks. When possible, doing it themselves provides the best intel. Someone else sees it that way, well let me determine if I can see it that way as well. It refines the information and extracts anything that doesn't pertain to the purpose. If someone tells Ni about a news article, Ni will want to read the article just incase something was missed in the telling. 

Ne accepts the outside interpretations and impressions. If others see it a certain way then there is validity in their observations. There's no reason to experience it themselves first because their personal connection isn't necessary to gain the knowledge. If no one else sees it then it's probably not important. To move forward Ne collects multiple possibilities and goes about collecting data from each angle. Since all of them are valid they all can be tried and give correct knowledge. 

Sometimes it seems Ne's ideas are a collection of thoughts without cohesion of an idea. It brings you to unnecessary places before it stops at the end. Ni doesn't need the information just because it's true, only information that pertains to the answer.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Too much reading, I can't handle it.
> 
> I was actually referring to the INTENT of taking action rather then the actual TAKING ACTION. I just said it wrong.
> 
> ...


Definitely so. ESTJs are extremely oriented towards organizing and furthermore, controlling, their external environments. They do so nearly 24/7. ENFPs that use Te in the tertiary slot, tend to only engage in that sort of behavior, for short amounts of time and with intensity. In short bursts. If they mature their usage of it, Te aids their Ne/Fi-ing. My aunt an ENFP social worker that happens to be very organized in her office setting, but messy and disorganized at home.

I could give you links that describe how each each function works depending upon positioning in the stack, but it will be a bit of a read.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Octavian said:


> So while an individual can hang onto my every word and question, they cannot by any means, adequately measure or deduce the specific workings of my internal Ni processing, unless I share it explicitly. Something that I and many other dom/aux Ni users, are incapable of doing.
> 
> I can agree with an idea, go through an entire conversation, and not even state or *seem* to agree with it (and I have done this many times.)


I agree that most people have no idea about the inner workings of Ni if they don't experience it.

I can't relate to the bit about not giving at least non-verbal feedback about whether or not you understand/agree.

I constantly give non-verbal feedback; I can't help it. If I am getting their idea and I agree with it, I indicate 'yes, I'm getting you'; if I am not getting their idea I ask for clarification and indicate non-verbally that I am not getting it; if I am getting it but I disagree I typically give them positive non-verbal feeback but express 'concern' by asking "What about this though" in regards to what I think their weak point is. 

This allows them to continue to talk openly without going on the defensive; if I said they were wrong, they would stop functioning in 'explain/think' mode and move into defense. Instead, I try to let them 'discover' they are wrong, and adjust accordingly.



Octavian said:


> The point I'm getting at, Ne often comes up with convoluted perceptions / definitions of Ni based in either loose observation, or extrapolation from online descriptions and dom/aux Ni-user forum posts. Needless to say, just by looking around, they tend to be off. There are exceptions of course.


Yes, Ne does come up with incomplete and convoluted explanations, but I think that after he heard our criticisms, he got the incentive to transform his "gist" into a full-fledged and quite good observation of what Ni looks like to the outside world. 

The "Ne is better and more usable than Ni" is a bit iffy; again, it's a little seed of an idea, not an idea. Ne congratulates itself on this; I would want to be more specific. In some contexts, Ne is certainly better; is it better on the whole? That I'm not sure of. I am inclined to think that yes, it is better, but again, I'm not sure.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@arkigos there's always a danger though when you use words like "gist", because equally I feel that well, don't I think in terms of "gists" too, or at least, essences? Am I not interested in perceiving something at its very essence, the core of what it is? I really don't understand what you mean when you claim that Ne is about "gists" though I try to grasp it. I can't, however, because my "gist" is Ni, that is, to narrow something down conceptually down to what I see is the very core of it. Not so much instant-gratification that I think Ne "gist" is about, but more about trying to really get a strong sense of what something is. 

Take your post for example, one could argue it's quite rambly in the Ne-Si sense in that it needs to rely and conveying personal experience at some level (this is how I have experienced it) but instead still not really capturing the gist or the essence of things. Rather, it seems to move around, touching the outskirts. 

Which is important to separate from Ti as well, since I often see Ti types claiming things about "essences", but in those cases I think they are more of logical nature as in understanding the essential categorization of what something is. I think Ti is quite essentialist in general in how it views reality, in that it seeks to create discreet categories.

As for the rest of this thread, I won't even fucking bother... People don't know wtf Ni is and I won't even try.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> Introverted functions want the personalized experience. Another person's perception or judgment is irreverent to the introverted function. Ni wants to gain the data itself so it can extract the information it deems important. Someone else's experience doesn't provide the right impressions that it needs to function. It questions certain things hoping to fill in the blanks. When possible, doing it themselves provides the best intel. Someone else sees it that way, well let me determine if I can see it that way as well. It refines the information and extracts anything that doesn't pertain to the purpose. If someone tells Ni about a news article, Ni will want to read the article just incase something was missed in the telling.
> 
> Ne accepts the outside interpretations and impressions. If others see it a certain way then there is validity in their observations. There's no reason to experience it themselves first because their personal connection isn't necessary to gain the knowledge. If no one else sees it then it's probably not important. To move forward Ne collects multiple possibilities and goes about collecting data from each angle. Since all of them are valid they all can be tried and give correct knowledge.
> 
> Sometimes it seems Ne's ideas are a collection of thoughts without cohesion of an idea. It brings you to unnecessary places before it stops at the end. Ni doesn't need the information just because it's true, only information that pertains to the answer.


Okay, this is Ni from the inside, not from the outside viewer's perspective. The really big disconnect in a lot of these threads is between what a function is to its user and what a function is like to the observer of the user. Both need to be addressed.

And I can see the 'getting it from the source' aspect of Ni in myself, internally. I always go to the source, and when possible (like in a class) I read the original book or research, not only the professor's interpretation. I get the sense that it gives me a much firmer and deeper knowledge base.

Thanks for adding in this bit!


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> Perhaps I was confusing in mentioning that I see Ni as being slow... but, what I said following that up was meant to express that such an impression was WRONG. Clearly, Ni is not failing to comprehend... or even slow to comprehend... but that it pushes me to arms length, and turns it's head, almost as if it takes my suggestion and looks into a bag somewhere, to see if it's there. Turns away from me, away from the brainstorm, away from the free induction, away from humoring me or 'riffing' or 'gisting' and looks into some black hole to see if it's there. That is an odd analogy but I don't have a better one.


This analogy resonates and I think it's accurate. Brainstorming sessions rarely interest me. I tend to observe and play with whatever ideas I perceive as worth playing with. When ideas are expressed to me I am often nonverbally dismissive, or silently engaged. Humoring or engaging in free induction is not something that I naturally do. When I am given information I intuitively know what to cut out and what to keep because ultimately Ni's agenda is not to generate 'objective' possibilities, but to form subjective impressions and they are subjective for the sake of personal understanding. Like putting text book definitions into your own words, or better yet, drawing a picture that is representative of it (at which point, hearing the word, recalls that drawn image.)

I think that's something that often goes misunderstood. We don't take our subjective interpretations (the internal image) as being inherently true or as an accurate depiction of reality. I'd go so far as saying that there *is* no ultimate truth or reality to Ni. Paradigms simply act as tools to the function. It wants to get outside of the box and observe it in that matter, and the way it gets outside of the box, is by taking on these odd methods of perception until it hits that fuzzy state of mind at which point we cannot even verbally fathom our processing. From that state comes a grand implication, a grand foretelling of things to come. (But when the dom/aux Ni user begins speaking about the truth, you'll notice that it's rigid and primarily based in either empiricism or objective ethics.) We don't determine what is true or real through our Ni, we do that through our judging functions.




> It is exacting in that way. Ni sees it internally, in that black hole, or it shrugs it off as illusion. You can see how Ne could ERRONEOUSLY see this as 'slow'. We are trying to explain the essence of something, and the Ni recedes, questions, hesitates... they say they aren't getting it. Perhaps they respect me enough to assume that there may indeed be something there... but, it isn't resonating for them, there is no epiphany, no signal back from the black hole ... and thus they cannot / will not accept it.
> @_Octavian_, this isn't like Ti because Ti, while impression-based in a sense, is also fully rational. It's a decision. Ni/Ne is just SEEING, which I state as comprehension... but I could see how that is insufficient. Is there a better word?


It was your word usage. 



> while you are slogging through that process, you find that they are _slowly and precisely_ *refining your comprehension* of that nature that you quickly got the 'gist' of... and in the end, I realize it is not so much that they are slow to pick up on the nature of something, but that _they are exacting and careful_ and hold close to the ego that interpretation.


The framing of this is very action oriented, it is verb-like in it's entirety. Ni does not refine or engage in precision, it accepts or it excludes. Not by grabbing or pushing away, but by standing in front and allowing it to hit, or by leaning out of the way. I don't know if that makes sense. This seems very Ti in that Ti wants to establish definitions, it wants to establish a premise and work through it for the sake of establishing validity. It picks away at whatever you have presented to it.

This paragraph, to me at least, seemed to be expressing judgement. To be evaluating and scrutinizing. This isn't Ni.



> You say Ni is perceptual leaps, sure, but what I mean is when someone else comes up to you and offers their perceptual leap.... and tries to resonate it to you, to get you grasp it. Ne will quickly extrapolate the 'gist' of it and induct it... this is a quick process. It thus often appears that an Ne grasps things very quickly, almost off-handedly. But that is because they perceive it in .... like a torrent or a stream (as in video files).


Yes this I can agree with. But to Ni, Ne has not grasped anything at all. That which it extrapolates rarely strikes us as being intuitively sound. Thus Ne's quickness and energy appears to be shallow. It doesn't penetrate. It's breadth over depth. At it's most severe, Ne is distracting and becomes detrimental to Ni progress in that it attempts to feed Ni 'bad' information. We don't associate quickness, breadth, or the multiplication of abstractions, ideas, or whatever with intuitive soundness. So if Ni is slow in that regard, and I mean in comparison to Ne (I now know that you're not arguing that Ni is slow at comprehension) that slowness is a virtue. 



> Ne is superior in the same sense as, say, Te is to Ti. It is a more face-value, objective, applicable, agile, perception. It also has all the relative failings that any extraverted function has.... too transient, too inductive, too co-dependent. Too quick. There is definitely such a thing as too quick.... too willing to move forward with a snap perception.


Each function is of a different agenda. To Te, empiricism is the ideal of thought. To Ti, sheer reasoning is the ideal of thought. Which is very interesting to note in relation to the divorce between say, the sciences (Te minded) and philosophy (Ti minded.)

Ni generates accurate implications and foresights (to the point that the function is associated with prophets.) What it conceives of, ends up happening. What Ne conceives of, does not. The immediate and tangible use of Ni is apparent even in all of it's subjectivity. So while the ideal of Ne is to objectively perceive (abstractly that is) the ideal of Ni is to accurately predict and to deeply understand, even if that's through subjective means. It has more pragmatic use. We can see that in the reputations of the dom/aux Ni types. You seem to be implying that functional direction, which is the equivalent to framing objective vs. subjective, determines superiority, which I simply disagree with on a fundamental level. 

I'd say that Ni is far superior to Ne and you obviously think the opposite, which causes me to conclude that this is simply bias towards our own functions. 



> Examples? Yes, teaching programming to an ENFP and an INFJ. The way I explain programming is very N oriented. I explain the abstract concepts behind it and just assume that once that is in place, the mechanical aspect will come into view. First, for the ENFP this was the best way to do it. For the INFJ, it was frustrating... all the concepts made sense enough but they needed to get their hands on it to see the mechanisms in action to understand it. That seemed odd for a Ti, so it caught my attention. The ENFP was rather the opposite. The concept they got pretty much instantly, the ideas behind it all registered immediately. How to operate it was both unnecessary and kind of uninteresting to them. I had the exact experience with an INFP explaining it. The reason I give NFP examples, is to avoid a Ti conflation. NJs are hard to explain programming concepts to. Flat out difficult, because they seem to approach it holistically... as if they fully grasp it or they almost seem (especially for NFJ) self-conscious about it. Afraid of getting it wrong? Afraid of being caught seeing untruly?


I'm a business management major but I minor in programming (officially called computer science here.) I definitely approach it holistically and I definitely refuse to accept the concepts until I play with them and experience the way in which they work. Hmm that last bit is interesting "afraid of getting it wrong." 

I can recall thinking on many occasions, "failure is yet another form of data collection." In many ways I invite and hope for failure, and take a very hands on, Te-experimentation approach, to things. But then again I can think of Ni dom/aux users that seem very afraid of being wrong, and as a child and early teen I did experience this sensation. 



> There is no such self-consciousness for the Ne. At all. I've done this with a fair number of people, and the Ne all 'gist' quickly, and operate confidently from that... and all the Ni are slow and exacting as hell... asking for 'specific examples' or for me to explain it in another way, or picking at this, or adjusting that... like they are curating my comprehension of something they themselves claim not to comprehend. *The thing is, I suspect they DO comprehend it as much as, say, the ENFP, but they don't see that as comprehension.* They see it as a 'gist' and hesitate.


The bold is 100% correct. I explained earlier about how Ne gist is not intuitive "truth" (for lack of a better word) to Ni. I'm starting to think we view the functions in a similar light, but simply express and word them in radically different ways.



> The same clarification to @_Octavian_ - it isn't that Ne understands faster, but that they consider the 'gist' to be a comprehension, and it's objectivity and agility make it more able to develop in real time. It is less that Ne comprehends more easily but that the definition the scope and prerequisite of comprehension is fundamentally different for Ne vs Ni.


I typed a mouthful but it isn't necessarily an argument, so much that it's just me thinking "out loud."


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> I constantly give non-verbal feedback; I can't help it. If I am getting their idea and I agree with it, I indicate 'yes, I'm getting you'; if I am not getting their idea I ask for clarification and indicate non-verbally that I am not getting it; if I am getting it but I disagree I typically give them positive non-verbal feeback but express 'concern' by asking "What about this though" in regards to what I think their weak point is.
> 
> This allows them to continue to talk openly without going on the defensive; if I said they were wrong, they would stop functioning in 'explain/think' mode and move into defense. Instead, I try to let them 'discover' they are wrong, and adjust accordingly.


That's very Fe. In any case I wasn't saying that was universal to all Ni-users. It's probably more of a personal quirk. I was just trying to point out that Ni isn't measurable in the way people think it is. 




> Yes, Ne does come up with incomplete and convoluted explanations, but I think that after he heard our criticisms, he got the incentive to transform his "gist" into a full-fledged and quite good observation of what Ni looks like to the outside world.
> 
> The "Ne is better and more usable than Ni" is a bit iffy; again, it's a little seed of an idea, not an idea. Ne congratulates itself on this; I would want to be more specific. In some contexts, Ne is certainly better; is it better on the whole? That I'm not sure of. I am inclined to think that yes, it is better, but again, I'm not sure.


I saw that post afterwards. He seems determine superiority by objectivity. Which I find ironic in that even our perceptions of supposedly objective data, is subjective. It's the curse of being human (although in terms of science, treating that which appears to be objectively true, as true, has benefited us greatly.) I determine superiority by pragmatic use. Ni accuracy in comparison to Ne, when it comes to foresight, is elite. In terms of the rationals for example, consider our reputations as supreme strategists and masters of implementation. You could say that's a bi-product of our Te, but look at the ISTJs/ESTJs. It's the same in regard to INFJ/ENFJ, noticed they're generally hailed as agents of social change. Ni is the driving force of that because even types sharing our judging functions lack the overly glorifying descriptions that we have. Out of Ni subjectivity, comes overwhelming pragmatic use. Thus, I view Ni as superior. But keep in mind that I'm a type 8, and bias towards one's function is inevitable. If someone called me egotistical in typing this I wouldn't disagree.


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

Octavian said:


> That's very Fe. In any case I wasn't saying that was universal to all Ni-users. It's probably more of a personal quirk. I was just trying to point out that Ni isn't measurable in the way people think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, there are some other important things to balance this with. Remember, you can only accomplish what you want to accomplish. Besides that, you may have the skills to implement, but you your success in implementation is limited by the resources available, and on any large scale project by other people's willingness to cooperate in assembling those resources. 

That said, I find INTJs and INTPs to be the most interesting to converse with when the object of the conversation is information exchange or debate. I got a lot from this thread; the INTP proposed an idea, and we took a shot at sharpening away the rough edges. The real gain, I thought, was the observation about the different Ni vs. Ne learning styles as an outside observer sees them. That was really fascinating. 

This wouldn't have panned out like it did without at least the INTP and the INTJs; only one wouldn't have worked so well.


----------

