# Introverted Intuition Vs Extraverted Intuition



## thor odinson

What the hell is the difference?

Please use simple definitions with examples as I have read mantra like this 

_Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us. A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden “Aha!” or “That’s it!” The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future. Using this process, we might rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict, enlighten, or transform. We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs. This process can involve working out complex concepts or systems of thinking or conceiving of symbolic or novel ways to understand things that are universal. It can lead to creating transcendent experiences or solutions._

and this

_Extraverted iNtuiting involves noticing hidden meanings and interpreting them, often entertaining a wealth of possible interpretations from just one idea or interpreting what someone’s behavior really means. It also involves seeing things “as if,” with various possible representations of reality. Using this process, we can juggle many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our mind at once with the possibility that they are all true. This is like weaving themes and threads together. We don’t know the weave until a thought thread appears or is drawn out in the interaction of thoughts, often brought in from other contexts. Thus a strategy or concept often emerges from the here-and-now interactions, not appearing as a whole beforehand. Using this process we can really appreciate brainstorming and trust what emerges, enjoying imaginative play with scenarios and combining possibilities, using a kind of cross-contextual thinking. Extraverted iNtuiting also can involve catalyzing people and extemporaneously shaping situations, spreading an atmosphere of change through emergent leadership._

countless times and still don't get a clear cut picture. It just seems like scholars trying to use big fancy words but ultimately say the same thing


----------



## thor odinson

My understanding has always been this

Ni: focuses on serial possibilities that follow one after the other in a linear progression

i.e. too much money chasing too few goods shows suppliers such as businesses that consumers not only want their product but have the money to spend on it, signalling an increase in demand *leading to* businesses raising prices to make a greater profit and capitalise on the opportunity *leading to* inflation and erosion of the currency's purchasing power which is a bad thing* leading to* an independent monetary authority such as the central bank to intervene and correct this problem by raising interest rates* leading to* people who have mortgages to spend less *leading to *a fall in prices once businesses see that consumers are not willing to pay as much given their limited budgets *leading to *a reduction in inflation and a stabilisation of the currency and the economy

Ni is about how one possibility leads to another in a sequential or linear progression, each even triggering the next

Ne focuses on parallel possbilities that may not link one after the other but exist side by side and may all be true. On top of this they may have other possibilities that branch off the initial possibilities identified

i.e.

Are you sorry because:

1. You got caught, and even though you got caught is someone forcing you to apologise?

or 

2. You are genuinely sorry

or

3. Both of the above, and if both, then which of the two is the greater factor if any at all, or are both factors equally weighted?


----------



## thor odinson

Ni








Ne


----------



## Azure Bass

I'm no expert on cognitive functions. But I've understood Ni and Ne as being convergent and divergent respectively. Where Ni primarily converges on a conclusion from the information gathered, like connect the dots and the stars above, as Ne primarily diverges from one idea, concept or even word to multiple meanings. I'm probably wrong, but that's what I understand it to be. Ni travelling to the roots of a tree from the branches, and Ne travelling from the roots to the branches and beyond.

Obviously we're capable of more than our preference; but that's what I mean by primary usage, considering that the MBTI measures preference and not ability. Don't quote me, I am unsure of my regurgitated knowledge. I hope this helps.


----------



## Magic Mirror

I have troubles understanding these two functions as well (despite supposedly using one of them) but I found it helpful to make a little thought experiment:

How would an Ni scientist and an Ne scientist conduct research?

*Ni would use deduction* and *Ne would use induction*. Ok, real world scientists would use whichever method was more appropriate - probably both of them together - but let's forget the real world for a while here, ok?


The Ni scientist begins with an _idea _or a_ theory_. He narrows his idea down into a specific _hypothesis_ that can be tested. He goes into his lab (or library or the field) and _observes_ what happens. Based on his observations, he concludes his theory either true or false.

So Ni begins with the general and narrows it down into specifics. Ni, as an introverted function, begins in the _mind_. It generates an idea and checks how the idea is manifested in the physical, external world - the realm of Se.

*Ni is concerned with narrowing things down and testing hypotheses.* Se helps Ni with observing the physical world to confirm hypotheses.


The Ne scientist begins with an _observation_. Ne, as an extraverted function, observes the external, physical world to generate its ideas.

The Ne scientist may notice a certain _pattern_ to his observations. This is where Si helps Ne: some observations may feel oddly familiar, as if they were connected somehow. The scientist begins to wonder if this pattern could be applied to not only the things he's already observed, but to other things as well. (He sees the possibilities and all possible connections.) Based on the pattern observed, he develops many _hypotheses_ than can be explored, and finally after exploring them, forms a _theory_.

*Ne is interested in open-ended exploration of theories and possibilities.* Si helps Ne with connecting newly observed data with previously observed data.


Of course, in the real world, functions don't work as systematically or consciously as the scientists in my example. Especially Ne feels to me much more random and spontaneous than that: when I see or read or experience something, it makes all kinds of random ideas and connections pop up in my head. But basically, my thought process goes like the one in the example, and I know I feel much more comfortable using inductive reasoning.

So, I guess my example boils down to what Azure Bass explained:



Azure Bass said:


> Ni travelling to the roots of a tree from the branches, and Ne travelling from the roots to the branches and beyond.


Ni begins with a general idea or hunch and narrows it down into facts, while Ne begins with the facts and observations and expands from there into the general idea. Therefore, Ni begins in your own psyche (it's an introverted function after all) and sees the outer world as a manifestation of the idea. Ne, on the other hand, observes the outer world (it's an extroverted function after all) and generates ideas based on the observations.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

I suggest a renaming of both functions to Di and De, respectively Introverted Delusion and Extraverted Delusion.


----------



## Azure Bass

Extraverted Delusion said:


> I suggest a renaming of both functions to Di and De, respectively Introverted Delusion and Extraverted Delusion.


Why consider it delusion and not intuition? What makes the difference for you?


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

Azure Bass said:


> Why consider it delusion and not intuition? What makes the difference for you?


Intuition lives on the "what ifs" of things, and sees what could be of something without necessary process of reason. Although some people base their intuition on logic, or personal value systems (T vs F), its generally not in the here and now, concrete, or necessarily "correct" as Sensing would be.

By the way, check out my username. That's my dom.


----------



## LiquidLight

Both types of intuition deal with symbols. The symbolic. Ne projects the symbolic (the unconscious) onto the outside world. So when we say "what if?" or "what will be?" we're not actually saying this from a factual standpoint with Extraverted Intuition we're dealing with it from a symbolic standpoint. What will be or what was based on your own imagining (unconscious symbols). This is why no two people will imagine or project the same thing. Ne starts with a possibility and branches out to more and more possibilities. Ne starts with the atom and eventually branches out enough to discover the universe.

Ni is a little different. Ni is closer actually to what we think of when we say 'intuition.' Having a gut-feeling about something or a sixth sense. With Ni what happens is your brain draws connections between the symbols of your unconscious. All of your memories, knowledge, experiences, etc. and finds patterns linking two or more seemingly disparate symbols together (synthesis). When this connection is made it can become conscious through the pipeline of Introverted Intuition as an epiphany or "Eureka!" moment. Ni translates the symbols of the unconscious into something we can understand on a conscious level. The problem with Ni is that Ni-types often don't know how they know what they know because all the work is done unconsciously (and will get frustrated if pressed to explain themselves). The solution just occurs to them out of nowhere. People with dominant Ni need to be able to trust their intuitions, as they have adapted this as their primary way of perceiving the world, thus Ni will need to rely heavily on Se to bring in more and more information. The more information the Ni type gets, the more finely tuned and well defined the intuitions are. This is why Ni-doms get the stereotype of clairvoyance or having ESP or psychic abilities and what not because they have the ability to pick up on patterns and link them together very accurately. This also gives them a propensity to be know-it-alls and manipulative as they often know how a situation might unfold well before it happens. Ni starts with the universe and eventually uncovers the atom.


----------



## Magic Mirror

Extraverted Delusion said:


> I suggest a renaming of both functions to Di and De, respectively Introverted Delusion and Extraverted Delusion.


How about Sensing then? In my opinion, Si and Se are forms of delusion too. After all, despite their focus on "concrete" things, they're still processes that occur _in the mind_, just like Intuition.

Sensors are not seeing "reality" as it is, they're still processing their perceptions iside the brain just like Intuitives. Even the most extreme of Se types isn't looking at the world as it is, he's still filtering everything he sees through his own psychological lens. The lens of a Sensor is different from that of an Intuitive, but it's still a lens.

I'd go as far as calling _all_ perceiving functions Delusion. No human being will ever be able to see reality "as it is"! :tongue:

(Sorry, off topic.)


----------



## thor odinson

Thank you above posters

I think with the examples you gave of Ne is about divergence and Ni is about convergence makes perfect sense

Ni looks for the pieces which make the whole, each possibility is connected to give you the overall picture and this joining the dots mentality is I guess what led me to think of Ni in a linear or sequential fashion. Yes to do with multiple possibilities like Ne, but those possibilities can be connected, hence Ni is more about what you do know

Ne branches off from an original idea and considers many possibilities that seem related to it that may or may not be true.

Seems like and only when strictly comparing the two to each other, that Ne is more about exploration whereas Ne is about creation.

Ni, what's the missing link here.

Ne, is it more likely to be this, or could it be that.


----------



## thor odinson

*Ni is more about exploration* is what I mean to say

Fuck why can't I edit anymore on PerC after submitting a response, it's really pissing me off


----------



## truth.pride.love

Magic Mirror said:


> Ni begins with a general idea or hunch and narrows it down into facts, while Ne begins with the facts and observations and expands from there into the general idea. Therefore, Ni begins in your own psyche (it's an introverted function after all) and sees the outer world as a manifestation of the idea. Ne, on the other hand, observes the outer world (it's an extroverted function after all) and generates ideas based on the observations.


Agreed! I can't speak for Ni, but as an Ne dominant, I can give my opinion. My example for Ne would be the *Grounded Theory method* of research. 

Google it if you're interested! Wait... Ne users have probably already done this :tongue::wink:


----------



## phantom_cat

how about having many possible ideas, but for one main idea (a shell basically), then trying to narrow it down to the best possible choice, while possibly leaving the option open of using those other possible ideas to implementation if it improves the overall idea, or a way for it to be done isn't possible yet? so basically a basic idea (concept), and refined over time in order to perfect it. it's like asking "what's the best way to accomplish this?" then the idea comes to you, and it's refined internally, and improved. all this while steps are skipped meaning problems are solved internally, so everything already has been taken into consideration based on what will happen in the future. Would this be Ni or Ne, or a combination of both?

anyways more on topic. from my understanding, Ni is picking the option that's not visibly there, while Ne throws out a bunch of possibilities. I think Ni is like being the object/answer, and it's looking at you.


----------



## LibertyPrime

thor odinson said:


> Thank you above posters
> 
> I think with the examples you gave of Ne is about divergence and Ni is about convergence makes perfect sense
> 
> Ni looks for the pieces which make the whole, each possibility is connected to give you the overall picture and this joining the dots mentality is I guess what led me to think of Ni in a linear or sequential fashion. Yes to do with multiple possibilities like Ne, but those possibilities can be connected, hence Ni is more about what you do know
> 
> Ne branches off from an original idea and considers many possibilities that seem related to it that may or may not be true.
> 
> Seems like and only when strictly comparing the two to each other, that *Ne is more about exploration whereas Ne is about creation.*<--now I see it <.< I will correct it here because I'm guessing you can't due to how the forums seem to be bugging up atm. *Ni is more about exploration whereas Ne is about creation.*
> 
> Ni, what's the missing link here.
> 
> Ne, is it more likely to be this, or could it be that.


Ne is creative. Ne takes one idea and expands on it via chance of possibilities. This is where you see ENFPs come up with really crazy ideas for things, and like new approaches better then the old one. It isn't choosing between different ideas, it is generating different ideas or growing them. *Think of it as creative idea generator.* Ne builds on existing information to create new information.

*Think of Ne as a sapling. The sapling grows and branches off, turns into a tree, reaches for the sky.*

Ni on the other hand looks at how things connect to form the whole, it can do this because it has the image of the whole in mind. It spots the blanks to be filled in and how that can be achieved. Ni builds on existing information to make it better, it connects the dots, because it knows the final structure.

*When I think of Ni I see a chipped and broken cube being swirled around and the little pieces are being assembled to form the cube itself. This is possible because the cube's shape is known, all one has to do is to fit the pieces together.*

*Now that I spotted the typo  it seems we agree.*


----------



## Cashmere

Thanks for posting this makes a lot of sense to me. I feel like Ne is like analyzing the symbolism of the books you read for English class. I was never really very good at that but learned to do it to get a good grade, and now I know how Ne works. You can sit and think about why for hours till you go crazy...I personally can't do it because I find it doesn't go anywhere but for some people I can see that being super satisfying.


----------



## shedreamt

As a Ne dom I find that trying to learn a method for doing something often leads to more questions than answers. I read the textbook and always feel like there's information missing. Like there are missing parts in the scaffolding of knowledge that forms the framework explaining the concept. I have to tell myself that those unanswered questions don't matter and do not impede my understanding of the concept. I could branch out acquiring more and more knowledge endlessly without deciding what is more important if I am not constrained by time, but my exploration lacks depth and consists only of broad connections if I dont stop to work with the information I already have.

Another Ne tendency might be my desire to reinvent the wheel when it comes to learning how to solve math and logic problems. I find it so much more difficult to follow a predefined linear sequence of steps vs forging my own pathway to the answer, starting at a random point. I can waste so much time trying different ways of solving a problem and eliminating the methods that do not work. Once I have taken sufficient time to try all the ways of solving the problem and asking all the tangential questions that pop up I can solve any sort of never before seen problem related to that subject at lightning fast speed. I am faster than my Ni dom friend and better at improvising but I do tend to make more errors in my calculations. He is able to learn the material more quickly too building upon his internal framework whereas the concept seems to be floating around in my head, outside of my consciousness rather than internalized. My ni dom friend seems to be able to draw conclusions based on the underlying principles being able to think logically better than I can, but I can ask the questions that direct our exploration of the subject to the most interesting points, tying in external information into the facts I already know more easily than the Ni dom.


----------



## bluenlgy

The problem with the confusion over Ni and Ne is much like the problem with the fundamental nature of our Universe - is there just one universe or are we living in one of the multiverses? Ni believes in only one universe with a straight line of events unfolding while Ne thinks there must be many universes each with a set of possible events starting from any point in time. The crazy thing about our reality is it's possible both scenarios are true, much like in the realm of quantum world the smallest unit of matter is both a particle and a wave, it all depends on how you look at thing and from what angle.

Reality is just an illusion.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

Magic Mirror said:


> How about Sensing then? In my opinion, Si and Se are forms of delusion too. After all, despite their focus on "concrete" things, they're still processes that occur _in the mind_, just like Intuition.
> 
> Sensors are not seeing "reality" as it is, they're still processing their perceptions iside the brain just like Intuitives. Even the most extreme of Se types isn't looking at the world as it is, he's still filtering everything he sees through his own psychological lens. The lens of a Sensor is different from that of an Intuitive, but it's still a lens.
> 
> I'd go as far as calling _all_ perceiving functions Delusion. No human being will ever be able to see reality "as it is"! :tongue:
> 
> (Sorry, off topic.)


No, thats what you call ineffective delusion.

You seem to think delusion is attached by a negative counterweight dragging it to the bottom of the ocean.


----------



## Muser

truth.pride.love said:


> Agreed! I can't speak for Ni, but as an Ne dominant, I can give my opinion. My example for Ne would be the *Grounded Theory method* of research.
> 
> Google it if you're interested! Wait... Ne users have probably already done this :tongue::wink:


That's how I write my essays. Didn't know there was a name for it.


----------



## pmj85

bluenlgy said:


> Reality is just an illusion.


*High five*


----------



## Twigs

I think I've finally understood this. (And I apologise if this has been said already ... I haven't read the whole thread yet.)

In terms of an essay (although these would both receive very low grades), an Ne would start on one topic, then extrapolate and veer off into several different topics and never really reach a conclusion, whereas an Ni would condense a three-page essay into one paragraph. 

Yay metaphors!

(having said this, I still can't tell which function I use)


----------



## nujabes

Twigs said:


> I think I've finally understood this. (And I apologise if this has been said already ... I haven't read the whole thread yet.)
> 
> In terms of an essay (although these would both receive very low grades), an Ne would start on one topic, then extrapolate and veer off into several different topics and never really reach a conclusion, whereas an Ni would condense a three-page essay into one paragraph.
> 
> Yay metaphors!
> 
> (having said this, I still can't tell which function I use)


Well maybe you should try to understand how they work when writing high-grade essays 

That actually happens to be my area of expertise - Ne-driven essays.

An Ne essay starts off with a clearly defined topic or idea. Don't expect a roadmap in the introduction, since Ne doesn't know where the essay is going to go until it is written. Rather, some conceptual background and perhaps an analogy.

Then the fun starts. Ne starts picking up speed, taking the original idea and extrapolating. Alternate explanation 1 happens. OOOH SHINY - tangential anecdote that provides a helpful insight... which opens the door for alternative explanation 2. But what about explanation 1? Which is better? Through that examination, alternative explanation 3 is created. Tangent... Tangent... How are these related? Oh, that's how. Wow, that's actually pretty insightful. BOOM alternative explanation 4.

On and on until Ne runs out of steam or until my Ti says enough is enough. Then the hardest part: writing a coherent conclusion to an Ne essay.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Being an Ni dom myself, I tend to find the differences pretty obvious beyond the shared intuition aspects. Ne to me comes off as more objective and neutral in it's search for possibilities and sort of possesses this unbiased enthusiasm for "anything being possible" (in the dominant form only) or objective randomness. Ni draws the individual's biased perceptions into the picture, while Ne is just sort of this unbiased quest (the Si behind it would be where the bias lies). As far as I can tell, Ne has very little to do with seeing in new ways (unlike Ni), as much as just working with the existing and taking it in twists and turns. The Se of Ni would be responsible for the "seeing in new ways" quality, while the Si of Ne would be responsible for it essentially not being this way. The S and N functions are inseparable, btw.


----------



## Sparky

thor odinson said:


> What the hell is the difference?
> 
> Please use simple definitions with examples as I have read mantra like this
> 
> _Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us. A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden “Aha!” or “That’s it!” The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future. Using this process, we might rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict, enlighten, or transform. We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs. This process can involve working out complex concepts or systems of thinking or conceiving of symbolic or novel ways to understand things that are universal. It can lead to creating transcendent experiences or solutions._
> 
> and this
> 
> _Extraverted iNtuiting involves noticing hidden meanings and interpreting them, often entertaining a wealth of possible interpretations from just one idea or interpreting what someone’s behavior really means. It also involves seeing things “as if,” with various possible representations of reality. Using this process, we can juggle many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our mind at once with the possibility that they are all true. This is like weaving themes and threads together. We don’t know the weave until a thought thread appears or is drawn out in the interaction of thoughts, often brought in from other contexts. Thus a strategy or concept often emerges from the here-and-now interactions, not appearing as a whole beforehand. Using this process we can really appreciate brainstorming and trust what emerges, enjoying imaginative play with scenarios and combining possibilities, using a kind of cross-contextual thinking. Extraverted iNtuiting also can involve catalyzing people and extemporaneously shaping situations, spreading an atmosphere of change through emergent leadership._
> 
> countless times and still don't get a clear cut picture. It just seems like scholars trying to use big fancy words but ultimately say the same thing


thor odinson, you are obviously right and I appreciate your pursuit of this knowledge. Basically, Ni is about interpreting hidden meanings and images, finding truths about ourselves and our future, which is based on knowing universal cultural icons, defining experiences, and exploring the society's hidden emotions. These hidden emotions exist through creative arts, and appear as striving toward a greater awareness.

As for Ne, you are better at this than I, so it is for you to find out. Thank you for this entertaining thread.


----------



## nujabes

Another analogy could be this:

A Ni-dom and Ne-dom perceive an apple.

The Ni-dom takes in constant information about the apple, building layers and layers of conceptual knowledge about the apple, like the apple's possible motivations, desires, secrets, etc. So Ni working with Se.

The Ne-dom takes in basic information about the apple, like the shape and color, small gestures and movements. Based on some basic previous knowledge, he begins to make connections to other things that share the apple's shape, perhaps things that remind him of this particular shade of red. Round apple reminds me of other round things, which makes me consider the role of form and shape in art. It's red, which conjures up thoughts of war and violence. It's also a fruit, a word which takes my mind from health concerns to jokes that are insensitive to homosexuals

I'm an Ne-dom, so that list of associations makes perfect sense to me. The real question is does it make sense to anybody else?


----------



## StellarTwirl

gingertonic said:


> Another analogy could be this:
> 
> A Ni-dom and Ne-dom perceive an apple.
> 
> The Ni-dom takes in constant information about the apple, building layers and layers of conceptual knowledge about the apple, like the apple's possible motivations, desires, secrets, etc. So Ni working with Se.
> 
> The Ne-dom takes in basic information about the apple, like the shape and color, small gestures and movements. Based on some basic previous knowledge, he begins to make connections to other things that share the apple's shape, perhaps things that remind him of this particular shade of red. Round apple reminds me of other round things, which makes me consider the role of form and shape in art. It's red, which conjures up thoughts of war and violence. It's also a fruit, a word which takes my mind from health concerns to jokes that are insensitive to homosexuals
> 
> I'm an Ne-dom, so that list of associations makes perfect sense to me. The real question is does it make sense to anybody else?


When I look at an apple, I immediately think of various things that could be done with it, ways the apple could be different (what if it had external seeds?), and the implications of these things ... what could bring about such a difference? What would an apple look like if the atmosphere changed? And so on. I also consider what might be unknown about the apple. What could be discovered that would change my view of it? I also synthesize various thoughts, like apple as womb, apple as egg, egg as planet.


On tests, I always score as an Ne-type, but I think I might actually be some Se-Ni combo. (I don't relate in ANY WAY to Sensor descriptions that suggest a grounding in concrete reality, because I clearly don't have that.)


----------



## nujabes

StellarTwirl said:


> When I look at an apple, I immediately think of various things that could be done with it, ways the apple could be different (what if it had external seeds?), and the implications of these things ... what could bring about such a difference? What would an apple look like if the atmosphere changed? And so on. I also consider what might be unknown about the apple. What could be discovered that would change my view of it? I also synthesize various thoughts, like apple as womb, apple as egg, egg as planet.
> 
> 
> On tests, I always score as an Ne-type, but I think I might actually be some Se-Ni combo. (I don't relate in ANY WAY to Sensor descriptions that suggest a grounding in concrete reality, because I clearly don't have that.)


that sounds a lot like Ne-Si. a LOT like Ne-Si.


----------



## Abraxas

*Skip to the 48 minute mark.

Carl G. Jung explains introverted intuition for about 10 minutes.*


----------



## Persephone

thor odinson said:


> What the hell is the difference?
> 
> Please use simple definitions with examples as I have read mantra like this
> 
> _Introverted iNtuiting involves *synthesizing* the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us. A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden *“Aha!” or “That’s it!”* The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future. Using this process, we might rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict, enlighten, or transform. We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs. This process can involve working out complex concepts or systems of thinking or conceiving of *symbolic or novel ways to understand things* that are universal. It can lead to creating transcendent experiences or solutions._


I highlighted what I took to be the essence of Ni. It's synthesizing, insightful and more single-minded. Consciously or not, the Ni gathers ideas and concepts with a goal in mind. It takes ideas and uses them to build something new, whether a new way of seeing things, or re-organizing and revising seemingly contradictory things to arrive at a higher truth or all-encompassing theory.

It does not brain storm, nor does it encourage free exploration of different strains of ideas. Which is why Ne can appear scattered because they are constantly scanning the environment and exploring new ideas. Ne users are more likely to be polymaths, while Ni users are theorists, visionaries and specialists.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Extraverted Delusion said:


> I suggest a renaming of both functions to Di and De, respectively Introverted Delusion and Extraverted Delusion.


So, you think the N functions are mentally disordered reasoning?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

> Ni, what's the missing link here.
> 
> Ne, is it more likely to be this, or could it be that.


You're Ne example can definitely be Ni also, since Ni is highly rooted in probability. The Ni example can be Ne, since Ne is about cause-and-effect connections, which obviously result from the objective world of reality. And no, there's no difference in creativity between the two by default. Ne is probably just more hands-on in its creativity, while Ni is more of a creative mode of perception.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion

JungyesMBTIno said:


> So, you think the N functions are mentally disordered reasoning?


When adjusted, ordered reasoning precedes as a base for determining stability in an individual, perhaps. Its expected that those with "mental disorders" seem to excel and surprise many with other overdeveloped areas of the brain. In my anecdotal account of knowledge, I seem to come across far more intuitives with anxiety, autism, antisocial, ADD/ADHD, bipolar etc. disorders than those who prefer sensing. I've read somewhere that the motivating function is the inferior, so to say that perhaps behavioral problems and/or cognitive inconsistency may spur primal, emotional investments in certain cognitive processes might hold some truth, or at least a positive direction to the truth.

Is it an evolutionary cognitive process (intuition) that stems from a period of exponentially quick technological and societal shift only to be accompanied by maladjustment and behavioral problems because something cannot seem to keep up? Perhaps, I ponder it sometimes. Its like the chicken or the egg debate, nature vs nurture etc. There's always a combative duality in every universal concept.


----------



## Dreamer777

Tenacity said:


> I'm no expert on cognitive functions. But I've understood Ni and Ne as being convergent and divergent respectively. Where Ni primarily converges on a conclusion from the information gathered, like connect the dots and the stars above, as Ne primarily diverges from one idea, concept or even word to multiple meanings. I'm probably wrong, but that's what I understand it to be. Ni travelling to the roots of a tree from the branches, and Ne travelling from the roots to the branches and beyond.
> 
> Obviously we're capable of more than our preference; but that's what I mean by primary usage, considering that the MBTI measures preference and not ability. Don't quote me, I am unsure of my regurgitated knowledge. I hope this helps.



gave me a good chuckle...:wink:

i think Ni creates great systems, and i think Ne can add to that and spice it up and make it lots of fun, just like how they say Ne lights up the whole brain like plugging in a Christmas tree and it lights up, as in true scientific research done on the brain when using Ne. So i think Ni is the great creator of a system, and Ne adds to it and makes it awesome fun!! :laughing:


----------



## Azure Bass

Dreamer777 said:


> gave me a good chuckle...:wink:
> 
> i think Ni creates great systems, and i think Ne can add to that and spice it up and make it lots of fun, just like how they say Ne lights up the whole brain like plugging in a Christmas tree and it lights up, as in true scientific research done on the brain when using Ne. So i think Ni is the great creator of a system, and Ne adds to it and makes it awesome fun!! :laughing:


Good example of this. I make some challenge maps on a level editor in an online community. I have a friend that's an Ne dom play with other friends of mine and he alone brightens up the outlook on the challenges in front of them.


----------



## Magic Mirror

Twigs said:


> In terms of an essay (although these would both receive very low grades), an Ne would start on one topic, then extrapolate and veer off into several different topics and never really reach a conclusion, whereas an Ni would condense a three-page essay into one paragraph.


When I was still in school, I used to write my essays the Ne style! Of course I learned to stay on topic and actually reach a conclusion, but my essays tended to be reallly looong, because while writing, all kinds of related (or not so related) ideas kept popping up in my head. About half of the writing time went into actually _writing_ the essay and the other half went into painstakingly trying to condense it. Condensing my essays was my idea of hell, because while re-reading my text, I spontaneously kept coming up with ideas that would make the essays even _longer_.

My idea of a writer's heaven would be having an outline of a story and _adding_ stuff to make the story longer. Didn't really think it was an Ne thing, but now that you mentioned it, it makes sense. (Of course, as a Ti-dom, my idea of heaven would also include proof-reading the story and re-wording it until it's grammatically perfect. :tongue

While lurking at the INTJ and especially ENTJ forums, I've been envious of the NTJ writing style: in general, they seem to write posts that are short and to the point but express everything that is needed to express. I guess it's Ni coupled with Te that makes their texts so to-the-point. ISTPs are good at it too, though in general they sometimes seem _ultra_ to-the-point with their famous witty one-liners. I envy them as well.


----------



## Abraxas

As you experience things in your environment, they leave an impression on your psyche that manifests unconsciously in the form of an insight.

When these insights are oriented via the objective factor, they involve insights into tangible objects and their properties, being able to devise novel and innovative states of being for them. You see possibility in the world around you, and so you are compelled to interface with the outside world in order to generate new possibilities.

When these insights are oriented via the subjective factor, they involve insights into your own state of being - into the state of your own psyche, and so you are driven to interface with your own identity. The insights take the form of fantasies that you are having in your mind, like day-dreaming. You see images and feel instincts that arise out of your unconsciousness, and reflect a fundamental truth about your own identity. Your identity is being shaped by external forces constantly, and those forces leave an imprint upon it. The imprint manifests in your dreams, and in your waking life as either Ni or Ne. The impressions find an outlet, either in the perception of implications about the state of being of the outer world, or the perception of implications about your own internal state of being.


----------



## thor odinson

Magic Mirror said:


> I spontaneously kept coming up with ideas that would make the essays even _longer_.


Good call.

I have a hard time studying even now, because Ne is designed to look for new information based on the stimuli you have so far, not make connections within it, much like what I think Ni does now that I'm getting a better understanding of it.

My Ne keeps asking for new information which makes it even impossible to start studying because it makes look like I have a mountain to climb. 

I think we can always become discouraged when the obstacle is too large.


----------



## Dreamer777

thor odinson said:


> Good call.
> 
> I have a hard time studying even now, because Ne is designed to look for new information based on the stimuli you have so far, not make connections within it, much like what I think Ni does now that I'm getting a better understanding of it.
> 
> My Ne keeps asking for new information which makes it even impossible to start studying because it makes look like I have a mountain to climb.
> 
> I think we can always become discouraged when the obstacle is too large.


Well, my Ne gives me hell that way too when i'm trying to work on a project. My Ne wants to keep throwing out all these great and fantastic ideas and disrupts my focus, and also makes me feel like i have a mountain to climb also which then can "paralyze" me from making headway in the project, cause now i dont' which way to carry the project, it's all so much great ways, ideas and possibilities. So what i do is make a conscious effort and tell my Ne basically to STOP! and give all my effort to try to keep focus on carrying it through ONE way so i can complete it! But it's hell! i tell ya! I think Ne users are born to give other's ideas on how to do projects, and let other's decide which idea they like the best and do it, and not try to do the projects themselves! It takes hard effort and unnatural energy to do the project themselves as a Ne user. And as i mentioned earlier, Ne can add on to Ni's projects and make them awesome fun, Ne is a very fun exciting function imo.


----------



## Hrothgarsdad

I didn't really know what my dissertation was about until I had terrible writer's block on the fourth (of five) chapters. Once I got that straight I was good of go. And the earlier chapters required only very slight revision. Of course, my initial writing process involved creating a quick skeletal structure and filling in details as I recognized what I had learned. This seems consistent with other descriptions of Ne.


----------



## Laguna

Pterodactyl said:


> Bumpitty bump bump. Recently I've been trying to get a grasp on the two functions as I was considering the possibility that I could be an ENFP rather than an INFJ, which I know sounds odd considering the reversal of functions, but many characteristics of the two types can appear very similar.
> 
> I have since come to a conclusion with a general hypothesis about the main difference between the two functions:
> 
> *Ne is an active thought process*, turned to the external world, somewhat like a search engine processing observed information in which trains of thought travel in various directions when used, whether it be to understand a certain concept or generate ideas in order to form abstract connections between phenomena or concepts. It is used manually. Whenever an Ne user is trying to understand a concept, the mental gears are manually turned through a nonlinear stream of thought with a multitude of relations created _objectively_, focusing on external data. Ne tends to function as speculation and exploration, without a definitive goal in mind when at work. Ne's view of the universe is malleable, and therefore has no mental map as the map is seen as subject to change. Ne users think to expand their ideas in number and breadth.
> 
> *Ni is more of a passive mental process*, one with the user, coming into their mind pouring universals, commonalities, plans of action, future estimations etc. into the mind to further complete a mental map of the universe picture while contemplating essences of phenomena and ideas. It is used naturally. Whenever an Ni user is trying to understand a concept, the concept floods into the mental map of the user in a definitive, more linear stream of thought as it is weighed against past experiences _subjectively_, focusing on internal data. Ni tends to function in a directional manner with an end goal in mind when at work. Ni's view of the universe is static, and therefore builds a mental map as the universe is seen as interconnected. Ni users think to further complete or perfect their mental map and deepen their understanding of interests.
> 
> The T/F functions keep the intuition in check, weighing the conclusions and ideas to check for logic T and/or value-consistency F.
> 
> And of course saying that Ni is more linear whereas Ne is more nonlinear is not to say that Ni is less creative or right-brained than Ne, or that Ni has less of a tendency for ADHD or ADD, or that Ni is less capable of being objective than Ne; these tendencies rely on the individual. _ Both functions have the same intuitive end effect of joining connections abstractly, but both use different processes to reach them_.
> 
> Key words in conclusion:
> Ni: Structured, intensive, subjective, directional, linear, grounded in thinking, based upon mental big picture
> Ne: Free, expansive, objective, speculative, nonlinear, open in thinking, based upon pure external world
> 
> Does anyone agree or disagree with this notion or have thoughts to add?


Suggestion- submit this as an article. Well written and others can benefit as well.


----------



## Entropic

Pterodactyl said:


> Bumpitty bump bump. Recently I've been trying to get a grasp on the two functions as I was considering the possibility that I could be an ENFP rather than an INFJ, which I know sounds odd considering the reversal of functions, but many characteristics of the two types can appear very similar.
> 
> I have since come to a conclusion with a general hypothesis about the main difference between the two functions:
> 
> *Ne is an active thought process*, turned to the external world, somewhat like a search engine processing observed information in which trains of thought travel in various directions when used, whether it be to understand a certain concept or generate ideas in order to form abstract connections between phenomena or concepts. It is used manually. Whenever an Ne user is trying to understand a concept, the mental gears are manually turned through a nonlinear stream of thought with a multitude of relations created _objectively_, focusing on external data. Ne tends to function as speculation and exploration, without a definitive goal in mind when at work. Ne's view of the universe is malleable, and therefore has no mental map as the map is seen as subject to change. Ne users think to expand their ideas in number and breadth.
> 
> *Ni is more of a passive mental process*, one with the user, coming into their mind pouring universals, commonalities, plans of action, future estimations etc. into the mind to further complete a mental map of the universe picture while contemplating essences of phenomena and ideas. It is used naturally. Whenever an Ni user is trying to understand a concept, the concept floods into the mental map of the user in a definitive, more linear stream of thought as it is weighed against past experiences _subjectively_, focusing on internal data. Ni tends to function in a directional manner with an end goal in mind when at work. Ni's view of the universe is static, and therefore builds a mental map as the universe is seen as interconnected. Ni users think to further complete or perfect their mental map and deepen their understanding of interests.
> 
> The T/F functions keep the intuition in check, weighing the conclusions and ideas to check for logic T and/or value-consistency F.
> 
> And of course saying that Ni is more linear whereas Ne is more nonlinear is not to say that Ni is less creative or right-brained than Ne, or that Ni has less of a tendency for ADHD or ADD, or that Ni is less capable of being objective than Ne; these tendencies rely on the individual. _ Both functions have the same intuitive end effect of joining connections abstractly, but both use different processes to reach them_.
> 
> Key words in conclusion:
> Ni: Structured, intensive, subjective, directional, linear, grounded in thinking, based upon mental big picture
> Ne: Free, expansive, objective, speculative, nonlinear, open in thinking, based upon pure external world
> 
> Does anyone agree or disagree with this notion or have thoughts to add?


Why that Ni explanation? Ni is not any less of a passive process compared to Ne, because both are intuition and are thus a passive process insofar that it generates archetype images created by the collective unconscious. They are also both as active in that when dominant, it is a conscious process. 

I am also not sure linear-non-linear are good contrasts to use here, because I don't think intuition is about linearity of thought at all. If one is falling back on linear-non-linear, then I'd say that's the realm of judgement, not perception, because thinking takes more of a directed nature which judgement does. 

I also disagree on that Ni's view of the universe is static. Socionics would argue it's the very oppositive - Ni is dynamic and Ne would be static. Also, I would advice against referring to any form of interconnectedness. That's again the realm of judgement. Judgement sees and creates connections between things, but perception does not. It just perceives the object but it does not make any claims about its value, worth or nature.

I also think it's incorrect to claim that Ni types are concerned about deepening their mental map but Ne types would not. Of course both types when interested in learning, seek to "deepen" their understanding of something. Again, you seem to be referring to an active process in thinking more in lines of judgement here. Perception simply operates more in an as is manner. It observes. It does not by itself seek to "deepen" something. 

Actually, a type suggestion for you since you seem to be insure of your type: INTP. I think what you describe as Ni here would better be suited if replaced by Ti.


----------



## Laguna

ephemereality said:


> I also disagree on that Ni's view of the universe is static. Socionics would argue it's the very oppositive - Ni is dynamic and *Ne would be static*.



Then I guess I disagree with Socionics. "Static" is exactly the opposite description of what Ne is. (It is constantly moving.) hmmmm

*1*. 
lacking in movement, action, or change, esp. in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting.


----------



## SHERlockedEnigmaPage394

I'd go as far as calling _all_ perceiving functions Delusion. No human being will ever be able to see reality "as it is"! :tongue:


> Plato?!? What are you doing here?!?


----------



## Entropic

Laguna said:


> Then I guess I disagree with Socionics. "Static" is exactly the opposite description of what Ne is. (It is constantly moving.) hmmmm
> 
> *1*.
> lacking in movement, action, or change, esp. in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting.


Then you don't know what socionics means with static:

Static types

Perceive events in an episodic manner – discrete states rather than continuous changes.
More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are.
Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events.
More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality.
The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character.

Statics

Statics view reality as sets of episodes, scenes, pictures. The consciousness of a Static type is oriented towards perceiving these separate, individual states, and not a continuous flows of changes.
When statics give descriptions of events, they are inclined to generalize the event itself and treat that event as just another event among similar events (" I usually celebrate New year...").
In stories by Statics there is usually one main character who is the central focus of the story; this almost never changes in the course of the story.
In stories of Statics descriptions of states dominate over descriptions of actions, flow of events. In addition to this, transition from one state to another is not continuous but rather jumps from one state to another.
Lexicon: frequent usage of "to be" as a catenative verb ("to become" "to appear to be"), frequent use of impersonal proposals with modal verbs ("to want", "to can"; "it is possible to make" instead of "I will make"), usage of no-verb constructions.


----------



## Laguna

ephemereality said:


> Then you don't know what socionics means with static:
> 
> *Static types*
> 
> 
> 
> Perceive events in an episodic manner – discrete states rather than continuous changes.
> More inclined to say how stages A, B and C are.
> Describe events in a general manner and by comparing them to other similar events.
> More inclined to talk of properties and structures of reality.
> The stories of statics usually involve one constant main character.
> 
> *Statics*
> 
> 
> 
> Statics view reality as sets of episodes, scenes, pictures. The consciousness of a Static type is oriented towards perceiving these separate, individual states, and not a continuous flows of changes.
> When statics give descriptions of events, they are inclined to generalize the event itself and treat that event as just another event among similar events (" I usually celebrate New year...").
> In stories by Statics there is usually one main character who is the central focus of the story; this almost never changes in the course of the story.
> In stories of Statics descriptions of states dominate over descriptions of actions, flow of events. In addition to this, transition from one state to another is not continuous but rather jumps from one state to another.
> Lexicon: frequent usage of "to be" as a catenative verb ("to become" "to appear to be"), frequent use of impersonal proposals with modal verbs ("to want", "to can"; "it is possible to make" instead of "I will make"), usage of no-verb constructions.


Interesting- and yeah, I guess I didn't know Socionic's definitions. I can't seem to delve deeply into Socionics. MBTI is enough to chew on- though it has deeper insights and some interesting ideas with how types interact with each other.


----------



## Pempslider

ephemereality said:


> Why that Ni explanation? Ni is not any less of a passive process compared to Ne, because both are intuition and are thus a passive process insofar that it generates archetype images created by the collective unconscious. They are also both as active in that when dominant, it is a conscious process.
> 
> I am also not sure linear-non-linear are good contrasts to use here, because I don't think intuition is about linearity of thought at all. If one is falling back on linear-non-linear, then I'd say that's the realm of judgement, not perception, because thinking takes more of a directed nature which judgement does.
> 
> I also disagree on that Ni's view of the universe is static. Socionics would argue it's the very oppositive - Ni is dynamic and Ne would be static. Also, I would advice against referring to any form of interconnectedness. That's again the realm of judgement. Judgement sees and creates connections between things, but perception does not. It just perceives the object but it does not make any claims about its value, worth or nature.
> 
> I also think it's incorrect to claim that Ni types are concerned about deepening their mental map but Ne types would not. Of course both types when interested in learning, seek to "deepen" their understanding of something. Again, you seem to be referring to an active process in thinking more in lines of judgement here. Perception simply operates more in an as is manner. It observes. It does not by itself seek to "deepen" something.
> 
> Actually, a type suggestion for you since you seem to be insure of your type: INTP. I think what you describe as Ni here would better be suited if replaced by Ti.


I may have made poor choices of words in some of these instances. I mean the words passive and active to differentiate between internally discerning ideas through inward reflection and externally discerning ideas through external observations. Passively reflecting on experiences vs. actively interacting with observances when utilized, if that makes any sense at all.

Intuition is the opposite of linearity, but I intended to explain that Ne projects a multitude of thoughts from one freely whereas Ni reflects and contemplates creatively through spontaneously but singularly generated links. Of course Ni does not think linearly and I know that my mind is quite random, but I think based upon constructed mental structures, going off of what is familiar and effective, jumping from topic to topic through abstract connections. I think @thor odinson's supernova vs. black hole metaphor applies perfectly in this.

And as for the words static and dynamic, I am with @Laguna, I did not know Socionics's definitions, and I haven't really delved too deeply into it. I kind of feel that Socionics is more of a superficial or surface-oriented system with multiple "types" applying to one person (I can very much relate to IEI and EII though I tested EII) while the MBTI is much deeper and more explanatory of personalities, but that could just be due to my ignorance of the former. I mean static to represent long-term systems-building and malleable to mean complete openness to exploring new ideas or outlooks. I see your point about interconnectedness and I very much agree.

I mean to say that Ne does not have a "mental map" of the universe, so to speak. Both types seek to deepen their understandings in topics of interest, yes, but Ni seeks to obtain the core essence of what it is deepening in that is tied, consciously or unconsciously, to some big idea from its outlook of the universe. Ni wants to fill in the blank and complete ideas, Ne wants to expand and links that one idea to many more. Ni is interested in the subject, Ne is interested in objects. Ne is more interested in what it sees, Ni is more interested in what is behind what it sees.

Being a Ti user may have influenced my understanding of Ni. I have briefly considered INTP, but I have discerned INFJ as my true type as I've always thought and tested as, though I do suspect my Fe to be fairly weak and underdeveloped and my Ti to be used frequently yet often as the result of doubt due to mental imbalance. Enneagram type 1w9 often tends to make F's appear as T's, as I suspect I do more online than in person where I could appear ENFP or perhaps even ENTP at times. I'm a Ti heavy INFJ that still has a strong Fe social focus and desire to accommodate for others and socialize.

I suppose the key contrast between the two is Ne object-orientation and freeness and Ni subject-orientation and long-term systems building, as I have seen others explain. I'm particularly going off of this article for that basis: http://personalitycafe.com/articles/84275-cognitive-function-ne-vs-ni.html

P.S. Thank you for the constructive criticism! I apologize for my vagueness and perhaps ignorance in terminology and whatnot, I am not exactly an expert and am kind of rambling about my general conceptions of cognitive functions. I hope I can at least clear this confusion up somewhat.


----------



## Entropic

Pterodactyl said:


> I may have made poor choices of words in some of these instances. I mean the words passive and active to differentiate between internally discerning ideas through inward reflection and externally discerning ideas through external observations. Passively reflecting on experiences vs. actively interacting with observances when utilized, if that makes any sense at all.


No, still makes no sense. Both are active and as passive with how consciousness directs energy and how they gather information. Feels like you are just nitpicking needless details. 



> Intuition is the opposite of linearity, but I intended to explain that Ne projects a multitude of thoughts from one freely whereas Ni reflects and contemplates creatively through spontaneously but singularly generated links. Of course Ni does not think linearly and I know that my mind is quite random, but I think based upon constructed mental structures, going off of what is familiar and effective, jumping from topic to topic through abstract connections. I think @thor odinson's supernova vs. black hole metaphor applies perfectly in this.


No, again a false dichotomy. How can something that simply perceives be classified as linear/non-linear at all? It does not follow, because linear/non-linear, especially in a Jungian sense, assumes some direction or active direction of thought in that one can direct its movement towards any given point. That lies within the realms of thinking, _not_ perceiving. Jung clarifies as much in his definition of rationality vs irrationality. 



> And as for the words static and dynamic, I am with @Laguna, I did not know Socionics's definitions, and I haven't really delved too deeply into it. I kind of feel that Socionics is more of a superficial or surface-oriented system with multiple "types" applying to one person (I can very much relate to IEI and EII though I tested EII) while the MBTI is much deeper and more explanatory of personalities, but that could just be due to my ignorance of the former. I mean static to represent long-term systems-building and malleable to mean complete openness to exploring new ideas or outlooks. I see your point about interconnectedness and I very much agree.


If that's what you think then I have to say you have most likely only also given it a surface level study. Socionics is much deeper and complex than the MBTI and is also in some ways, structurally superior to Jungian theory. I would suggest a type for you in socionics - LII. I also think that you are a Jungian Ti dominant type but that's an aside. 



> I mean to say that Ne does not have a "mental map" of the universe, so to speak. Both types seek to deepen their understandings in topics of interest, yes, but Ni seeks to obtain the core essence of what it is deepening in that is tied, consciously or unconsciously, to some big idea from its outlook of the universe. Ni wants to fill in the blank and complete ideas, Ne wants to expand and links that one idea to many more. Ni is interested in the subject, Ne is interested in objects. Ne is more interested in what it sees, Ni is more interested in what is behind what it sees.


Then ontologically, neither operate from the premise of a complete map and both operate on the premise to fill their perception with information and indeed, that is what perception is. 



> Being a Ti user may have influenced my understanding of Ni. I have briefly considered INTP, but I have discerned INFJ as my true type as I've always thought and tested as, though I do suspect my Fe to be fairly weak and underdeveloped and my Ti to be used frequently yet often as the result of doubt due to mental imbalance. Enneagram type 1w9 often tends to make F's appear as T's, as I suspect I do more online than in person where I could appear ENFP or perhaps even ENTP at times. I'm a Ti heavy INFJ that still has a strong Fe social focus and desire to accommodate for others and socialize.


You are most definitely an INTP. Not sure why you think you are an INFJ to be honest. I don't see you leading with Ni in your posts and your thinking is also static in a socionics sense, suggesting you are Ji ego, not Je. 



> I suppose the key contrast between the two is Ne object-orientation and freeness and Ni subject-orientation and long-term systems building, as I have seen others explain. I'm particularly going off of this article for that basis: http://personalitycafe.com/articles/84275-cognitive-function-ne-vs-ni.html


Euch. Not that thread. 



> P.S. Thank you for the constructive criticism! I apologize for my vagueness and perhaps ignorance in terminology and whatnot, I am not exactly an expert and am kind of rambling about my general conceptions of cognitive functions. I hope I can at least clear this confusion up somewhat.


If you mean frustrating, then you'd be correct.


----------



## Pempslider

ephemereality said:


> No, still makes no sense. Both are active and as passive with how consciousness directs energy and how they gather information. Feels like you are just nitpicking needless details.
> 
> 
> 
> No, again a false dichotomy. How can something that simply perceives be classified as linear/non-linear at all? It does not follow, because linear/non-linear, especially in a Jungian sense, assumes some direction or active direction of thought in that one can direct its movement towards any given point. That lies within the realms of thinking, _not_ perceiving. Jung clarifies as much in his definition of rationality vs irrationality.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you think then I have to say you have most likely only also given it a surface level study. Socionics is much deeper and complex than the MBTI and is also in some ways, structurally superior to Jungian theory. I would suggest a type for you in socionics - LII. I also think that you are a Jungian Ti dominant type but that's an aside.
> 
> 
> 
> Then ontologically, neither operate from the premise of a complete map and both operate on the premise to fill their perception with information and indeed, that is what perception is.
> 
> 
> 
> You are most definitely an INTP. Not sure why you think you are an INFJ to be honest. I don't see you leading with Ni in your posts and your thinking is also static in a socionics sense, suggesting you are Ji ego, not Je.
> 
> 
> 
> Euch. Not that thread.
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean frustrating, then you'd be correct.


Okay. Please give me your explanation of the difference between Ni and Ne, then. 

That's quite the rash assumption, calling me an INTP when you're only able to view a small angle of my personality. Why is it always the INTJs who claim to know who I am from what they see of me in a handful of forum posts better than I do? It seems every one I run into in discussions such as these is rather arrogant in their impulsive typings, perhaps being a predominant Te user weakens the understanding of the complexities of the multifaceted human mind. I suppose it's the Te's instinct to build broad sweeping judgments and characterizations and not so much check for inconsistencies and analyze for logic like Ti. You underestimate the use of Ti in many INFJs. Look at Noam Chomsky, he is Ti-heavy as hell but still essentially a definite INFJ. I use Ti because I adhere to a view of skepticism and like to try to understand everything without only assuming based on my intuition. I suppose it's largely from my interest in science and need to think scientifically inspired by my ISTP 5w6 father. If I just go off my Ni feeding me ideas and positions then I don't truly know the inner workings of the subject, and I would be unable to rationalize my ideas and thus not grounded in the fullness of reality. And what would someone leading with Ni look like in posts on internet forums anyway?


----------



## azdahak

Pterodactyl said:


> Okay. Please give me your explanation of the difference between Ni and Ne, then.
> 
> That's quite the rash assumption, calling me an INTP when you're only able to view a small angle of my personality. Why is it always the INTJs who claim to know who I am from what they see of me in a handful of forum posts better than I do? It seems every one I run into in discussions such as these is rather arrogant in their impulsive typings, perhaps being a predominant Te user weakens the understanding of the complexities of the multifaceted human mind. I suppose it's the Te's instinct to build broad sweeping judgments and characterizations and not so much check for inconsistencies and analyze for logic like Ti. You underestimate the use of Ti in many INFJs. Look at Noam Chomsky, he is Ti-heavy as hell but still a definite INFJ. And what would someone leading with Ni look like in posts on internet forums anyway?


Allow me to enlighten you with some Ne-supernova brilliance. The Ni-black hole is formed by the sheer gravitational mass of their ego. Stay well outside the Schwarzschild radius or get sucked into an alternate Bizarro World Universe from which nothing, not even common curtesy, can escape.


----------



## Entropic

Pterodactyl said:


> Okay. Please give me your explanation of the difference between Ni and Ne, then.
> 
> That's quite the rash assumption, calling me an INTP when you're only able to view a small angle of my personality.


Psychological type is not your personality, but it's a specific outlook of how you shape and make sense of the world around you. It's more like a worldview, a perspective or a lens that you wear on a daily basis than some personality trait or such. 

The difference between Ne and Ni is quite simple - one is oriented towards the object and another away from the object. They both intuit data because both are intuition, and they both abstract archetype content about the object, but they do so either on accepting the object as it is and seeing how each option has equal weight, or they do it by denying certain options in light over others, subjectively preferring which one is ideal. 

The difference lies solely in the difference between I/E. 



> Why is it always the INTJs who claim to know who I am from what they see of me in a handful of forum posts better than I do?


Your cognition is super-ultra-obvious if you know what to look for. I would for example refer to the static dichotomy in socionics that fits your writing style and thus your thinking, which makes you Ji in ego no exception. Hence INFJ is not possible. 



> It seems every one I run into in discussions such as these is rather arrogant in their impulsive typings, perhaps being a predominant Te user weakens the understanding of the complexities of the multifaceted human mind. I suppose it's the Te's instinct to build broad sweeping judgments and characterizations and not so much check for inconsistencies and analyze for logic like Ti.


Yeah, see, so you get hung up on that Te types don't adhere to a Ti worldview, not Ni. If you were an Ni type, you would be more bothered when people don't fixate themselves around a view focused on Ni. The reason for this is because the dominant or base function is the one that informs us the most at any given moment and we identify with it the most as well - this leads to an assumption that we desire and want other people to orient themselves towards our dominant function as well and see the world the way we do it. 



> You underestimate the use of Ti in many INFJs.


Nay. I recognize the strong use of Ti in Jung but that's the thing - there was a point where Jung refused to Ti. He had a specific threshold he would not pass over, and the reason for that in my opinion is because he was not a Ti dominant type. 

Also, you claim yourself that your Fe is weak, even for an INFJ. How does that make sense? I don't believe there is a strict order of preference in auxiliary and tertiary in that I think they can swap around a bit, but swapping between auxiliary and inferior is quite different. 



> Look at Noam Chomsky, he is Ti-heavy as hell but still essentially a definite INFJ.


I have no time to try to type Noam Chomsky so I can verify that right now. 



> I use Ti because I adhere to a view of skepticism and like to try to understand everything without only assuming based on my intuition.


See? Go back to that threshold I mentioned earlier that applies to most if not all irrational types. You essentially claimed here you don't have it, that the activity of Thinking is more important than you than intuiting content itself. 



> I suppose it's largely from my interest in science and need to think scientifically inspired by my ISTP 5w6 father. If I just go off my Ni feeding me ideas and positions then I don't truly know the inner workings of the subject, and I would be unable to rationalize my ideas and thus not grounded in the fullness of reality. And what would someone leading with Ni look like in posts on internet forums anyway?


But see, an Ni dom is not as concerned about knowing the inner workings of an object as they are concerned about experiencing its intuitive archetype content. 

And I am exemplary of that someone, and a lot of other INTJs I have spoken to personally and verified as INTJs. Also INFJs I have identified as such on this forum. It's very noticeable when we share base cognition because our worldview is largely the same in that we're more interested in experiencing the world than making sense of it.


----------



## randomshoes

nujabes said:


> Well maybe you should try to understand how they work when writing high-grade essays
> 
> That actually happens to be my area of expertise - Ne-driven essays.
> 
> An Ne essay starts off with a clearly defined topic or idea. Don't expect a roadmap in the introduction, since Ne doesn't know where the essay is going to go until it is written. Rather, some conceptual background and perhaps an analogy.
> 
> Then the fun starts. Ne starts picking up speed, taking the original idea and extrapolating. Alternate explanation 1 happens. OOOH SHINY - tangential anecdote that provides a helpful insight... which opens the door for alternative explanation 2. But what about explanation 1? Which is better? Through that examination, alternative explanation 3 is created. Tangent... Tangent... How are these related? Oh, that's how. Wow, that's actually pretty insightful. BOOM alternative explanation 4.
> 
> On and on until Ne runs out of steam or until my Ti says enough is enough. Then the hardest part: writing a coherent conclusion to an Ne essay.


Have you been spying on my brain?


----------



## Wolfskralle

OK guys, so how would you describe following experiences - as Ne, Ni, Si or perhaps some other function?

*- When I am thinking about something, or perceiving something from my external enviroment (usually when I concentrate intentionally on external object or on a thought) I am coming directly from A to E, skipping points B, C, D.*

An example is when I talk with someone (especially someone close to me, like my gf or friend), I literally know what she (he) is going to say, after she (he) just started the sentence. Like yesterday, my gf said "what…" and stared at some point; I interrupted her and answered her full question, which was "what we are going to do about our next week trip". The question wasn't correlated with our previous talk in any way, nor we spoke about it in last few days. So there was no correlation, which could logically suggest me what she was going to ask; anyways, the question was obvious for me.

Same thing applies to thinking about ideas; this happens especially after I wake up. E.g. today I thought about my MA thesis. I think about something (let's name it A) and then it's far implication suddenly come in (let's say, E). Those realizations are quite strong; actually it feel's like you just realized something obvious, what for some unknown reasons you didn't realize till now. It is so obvious, that I never feel like I need write it down. The problem is I usually forget those "E realizations" soon after they arrive. Today I spent 2 hours trying to "recover" this realization and write it down in my paper. The problem is, when you don't have point's B, C, D you can't follow straight line of reasoning, hence only way you have is to go into similar "feeling state", in which you were when the realization came, to recover it.

*- Often those realizations are more powerfull, random and sometimes triggered by some external object/situation.*
E.g. I look at my purring cat, and suddenly realizes he is a living creature exactly the same as I am, and then I „see” his whole „life” in a new perspective. 
External object may also be a book character, or sth similar. E.g. after my favourite book character dies I suddenly realize something obvious (I am mortal) but in a way that changes whole understanding of my life or the universe in one second. 
As you see essence of those realizations is quite banal, but sometimes it let me see everything in a new perspective. I must also say this is usually quite scary.


To be clear: this stuff (both points) happens usually few times a day - not all the time. Especially when I talk to someone about feelings/personal stuff, he/she have to explain me things slowly in a A>B>C>D>E way.

*- I have a vivid imagination which literally driving me crazy sometimes.* I can start thinking about Ockham Razor and finish deliberating about tampons. This is more like A>B>C but totally out of control. Yeah I know everybody can have this sometimes. But I can't stop it, it gave me a lot of troubles in school. I couldn't concentrate most of the time (especially on subjects I don't find interesting). I have no idea, why my brain belive that tampons are more important than History or Geography. It kinda reminds Joyce's _Ullysess_ and stream of consciousness. (BTW I didn't like that book). Althought I might just be lazy and looking for excuses : P


*- I can „put myself in someone's shoes” or „go inside his head”. *I can „emulate” someone (or group of people) desires and needs inside my head, if I concentrate enough. It isn’t like empathy, it is „knowledge”, not „feeling”. It helps in business (in building product’s and in marketing). On the other hand I sometimes notice things in other’s behavior, or know things, I don’t necessarily want to know (this happens often when I think about someone a lot). Like my ex said, she was afraid of me, cause „after one look on her I can see her mood, desires and what she had for breakfast yesterday ”. Again, this usually happens only with people I am intentionally thinking about or people currently closely related with me. 
EDIT: forgot to add, that I am usually very disconnected from my physical enviroment; basically I see ONLY things related to what I am currently thinking about.


Now question for the function experts: are above experiences coherent with any Jung function? For me it sounds like Ne-Ni-Ti mix. I talked with people about those experiences and they have no clue what the heck I am talking about. Jung himself wrote about Ni Ne functions in a very "cloudy" manner. Internet sources are incoherent.
Maybe explaining my experiences will help someone else; for sure it will help me ;-)


PS Apologies for my low-grade english; I don't speak english natively.

PPS Yes I did read this topic and many more.


----------



## randomshoes

@wolf12345

Ni Ni Ni. Suddenly knowing something like that is definitely Ni. Not understanding your own thought process but somehow having an answer is Ni. Having realizations that change the way you view everything and its meaning is Ni. I see very little that looks anything like Ne or Ti.


----------



## nujabes

randomshoes said:


> Have you been spying on my brain?


maybe, or maybe you've been spying on mine for so long you can't tell the difference?


----------



## Pempslider

ephemereality said:


> Your cognition is super-ultra-obvious if you know what to look for. I would for example refer to the static dichotomy in socionics that fits your writing style and thus your thinking, which makes you Ji in ego no exception. Hence INFJ is not possible.


One INTJ thought I was an ISFJ based on my typing of Marilyn Manson as INFJ, now you think I'm an INTP because of the way I write posts on one thread on a forum.

Point proven, and never mind. Writing styles can be a sign of a multitude of effects. As I understand it, Socionics covers cognitive styles, not writing styles. To assume otherwise would be a pretty stretched and baseless assumption. Thinking with no exception is irrational in a subject regarding typing complex human beings. You can cast general predictions, but you must accept that you are a human being and your assumptions are prone to failure. And again, you don't know who I am. I have read about the Static and Dynamic theory and I identify much more with the Dynamic end of the dichotomy. Everything I have read lately about the differences between Ni and Ne makes me identify more with introverted intuition that extraverted. Looks can be deceiving. You cannot walk within my shoes from this limited profile on me on the internet. What you see here is a reflection of me, a shadow cast by my often disintegrated personality. 



ephemereality said:


> Yeah, see, so you get hung up on that Te types don't adhere to a Ti worldview, not Ni. If you were an Ni type, you would be more bothered when people don't fixate themselves around a view focused on Ni. The reason for this is because the dominant or base function is the one that informs us the most at any given moment and we identify with it the most as well - this leads to an assumption that we desire and want other people to orient themselves towards our dominant function as well and see the world the way we do it.


Who said I am not bothered by this? I'm mainly bothered by arrogance, ignorance and selfishness in others. Arrogance is something I am seeing in you, and your lack of logic is something that signifies that and is something you seem to be blind to. Does being bothered by illogic at times guarantee that someone is INTP?



ephemereality said:


> Nay. I recognize the strong use of Ti in Jung but that's the thing - there was a point where Jung refused to Ti. He had a specific threshold he would not pass over, and the reason for that in my opinion is because he was not a Ti dominant type.


As do I. Because I do not bend to see _your _perceived view of me does not mean I am Ti. I have ideas and values that I don't need to prove to myself tangibly and naturally make decisions daily on them, but I have Ti to back them up when questioned by others in order to remain objective and just. There are things logic cannot fully understand, and there are abstractions that must be grasped by logic in order to convey to others and be built upon. 



ephemereality said:


> Also, you claim yourself that your Fe is weak, even for an INFJ. How does that make sense? I don't believe there is a strict order of preference in auxiliary and tertiary in that I think they can swap around a bit, but swapping between auxiliary and inferior is quite different.


No, I mean to claim my Fe to be often compromised by my anxiety. My Ti is used mainly when I am under stress. The Fe is there always. Usually it is free flowing, engaging, passionate, compassionate, sociable and expressive, but sometimes I deal with uncertainty, self-consciousness, lack of confidence in myself and thus over-thinking. I believe this to be a result of the fact that INFJs are supposed to revert to their inferior functions under stress as any other type. 

Honestly, I wish I could be more like an INTP at times, but as much as I may hate to admit it my values and emotions are much heavier than my logic, I am easier swayed by empathetic effect than logic. Overall I go off of how I feel about things and don't care about the reasoning behind my feelings and intuitions, rather my being assumes they are as they are the true essence of who I am.



ephemereality said:


> I have no time to try to type Noam Chomsky so I can verify that right now.


His moral ideas and ethics are much to smooth, concrete and commanding for him to be a Ti-dom type. Read the article "When Chomsky Wept" if you ever have the time, it's enlightening as well as informative about his personality which isn't seen much by the public. 



ephemereality said:


> But see, an Ni dom is not as concerned about knowing the inner workings of an object as they are concerned about experiencing its intuitive archetype content.


Again, INFJs use Ti, and I'd say I am more concerned about experiencing "intuitive archetype content" though I suppose looks can be deceiving to others. I am a big picture person, I only care to figure out the inner workings of an object whenever it is necessary.



ephemereality said:


> And I am exemplary of that someone, and a lot of other INTJs I have spoken to personally and verified as INTJs. Also INFJs I have identified as such on this forum. It's very noticeable when we share base cognition because our worldview is largely the same in that we're more interested in experiencing the world than making sense of it.


And what do you think I have showed you of my worldview? I too am able to recognize others in my type naturally in our similarities, it's almost as if it is a sixth sense. Experiencing and absorbing the world in its full is my guiding force in life.

Your definition of Ne and Ni is clear and concise, and it is all I was really aiming for and I haven't done near enough searching as you have. To be honest I just looked over this thread and others like it over the course of many nights when I was unable to sleep and tried to form a basis of it, but I guess I over-thought it.


----------



## thor odinson

@Pterodactyl I think your linear vs non-linear example may have been misunderstood because it is used in a vague sense and it depends on how technical others get with those definitions.

Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

Ni builds on an idea. It stays on track and almost focuses on what's next, not necessarily in a chronological/timely manner but what else is needed to complete the mind map.

Ne branches out almost like a family tree. It can go on tangents and veer of the original course/topic. 

Is that what you meant by more linear vs non-linear?


----------



## 18skeltor

thor odinson said:


> Ni
> View attachment 28501
> 
> 
> Ne
> View attachment 28502


Yay. BEST EXPLANATION I'VE EVER SEEN.


----------



## Pempslider

thor odinson said:


> @Pterodactyl I think your linear vs non-linear example may have been misunderstood because it is used in a vague sense and it depends on how technical others get with those definitions.
> 
> Correct me if that assumption is wrong.
> 
> Ni builds on an idea. It stays on track and almost focuses on what's next, not necessarily in a chronological/timely manner but what else is needed to complete the mind map.
> 
> Ne branches out almost like a family tree. It can go on tangents and veer of the original course/topic.
> 
> Is that what you meant by more linear vs non-linear?


Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say, thank you! I suppose it was just another way of explaining the convergent/divergent analogy. I still don't see what's wrong with that idea, but apparently ephemereality got hung up on the wording.


----------



## Pempslider

@ephemereality

Ahh, it all makes sense now; you were the one that only a few months ago was trying to tell me I was Ne-inferior. I thought that was the case. I'd say that shows something about you and your habit of hastily throwing types on people without truly knowing anything about them. I do thank you for turning me onto socionics though, it really is a great system and has taught me a lot about my personality.

Your sureness of me being an INTP made me want to question my type. Doing this made me realize the difference between friends of mine that have tested as INFP, INTP, ENTP, and ENFP and INTJ people I know along with myself is precisely the way you described the difference between Ne and Ni; towards the object outwardly and away from the object into the inner world. Ne-users go towards and see what an object represents directly, I see what objects represent in my vision. INTPs are driven by curiosity, I by vision. With me, Ti and logical understanding are only valued as means to an end, in INTPs they are the end.



ephemereality said:


> Also, you claim yourself that your Fe is weak, even for an INFJ. How does that make sense? I don't believe there is a strict order of preference in auxiliary and tertiary in that I think they can swap around a bit, but swapping between auxiliary and inferior is quite different.


Also, I must not have read this tidbit close enough-- did you try to say that Ti is the inferior function in INFJs? I don't believe I ever said I favor Se over Fe. I said my Ti is fairly strong. Anyway, I believe the functions go Ni-Fe-Ti-Se.


----------



## Sixty Nein

18skeltor said:


> Yay. BEST EXPLANATION I'VE EVER SEEN.


That's actually a bad explination. lol More like S vs N.

You're a cutie though so I'll forgive you.


----------



## Wartime Consigliere

Are other xNxJs really that bad at backtracking the sources of their impressions...? Tracing back causes is typically where I get my confidence from when I speculate...

I did like the Ne-reasoning resembling a family tree analogy though, I think that's pretty accurate. It likely is true in Se for the same reason though. _Maybe_ these sorts of things should be described in Pi vs Pe and Ji vs Je metaphors?


----------



## 18skeltor

Sixty Nein said:


> That's actually a bad explination. lol More like S vs N.
> 
> You're a cutie though so I'll forgive you.


^.^ Soz that was a long time ago (not really) but before I knew a lot of what I know now about functions.


----------



## Leila

Hi,

I just wanted to comment here because I am a sensor with absolutely no ability to use either Ni or Ne. In fact I came across this thread because I was trying to understand what exactly it is. 
This has caused me some problems in different aspects of my life (trying to understand symbolism in poetry, cultural anthropology, art, etc etc.). The biggest and most recent problem is that I have only realized (in my 30s) that I am gay. 
I am married, and my husband (an INTJ) just cannot understand how the hell I didn't connect the million signals my brain has been sending me since my teens. 
Signal examples: Only fantasizing about women; never having a connection with a man that was more than friendly; having to either close my eyes or watch porn during sex…the list goes on.
My husband said, if those things were happening to me, I would sit down and figure out WHY I am doing those things or feel that way. Well, I never thought about it and my brain never ever connected the dots. 
I am still struggling to understand how I missed all the signals, but I do believe that it has something to do with a lack of ability to recognize or see patterns…any comments or feedback would be so helpful. Thanks 

I should add that I am STILL having trouble accepting that I am actually gay, despite all the 
evidence and the fact that I just cannot have sex with a man. I just don't trust these signals and I don't know why (


----------



## randomshoes

Leila said:


> Hi,
> 
> I just wanted to comment here because I am a sensor with absolutely no ability to use either Ni or Ne. In fact I came across this thread because I was trying to understand what exactly it is.
> This has caused me some problems in different aspects of my life (trying to understand symbolism in poetry, cultural anthropology, art, etc etc.). The biggest and most recent problem is that I have only realized (in my 30s) that I am gay.
> I am married, and my husband (an INTJ) just cannot understand how the hell I didn't connect the million signals my brain has been sending me since my teens.
> Signal examples: Only fantasizing about women; never having a connection with a man that was more than friendly; having to either close my eyes or watch porn during sex…the list goes on.
> My husband said, if those things were happening to me, I would sit down and figure out WHY I am doing those things or feel that way. Well, I never thought about it and my brain never ever connected the dots.
> I am still struggling to understand how I missed all the signals, but I do believe that it has something to do with a lack of ability to recognize or see patterns…any comments or feedback would be so helpful. Thanks
> 
> I should add that I am STILL having trouble accepting that I am actually gay, despite all the
> evidence and the fact that I just cannot have sex with a man. I just don't trust these signals and I don't know why (


This actually sounds like a lack of Fi to me--not trusting your internal like/dislike signals. Your wants and needs, if you will. Although low order Ni probably didn't help you put the pieces together.

Anyway, I wish you luck dealing with all the crazy life stuff that can come with something like that. I figured out that I was bisexual when I was 21, not married, no kids, and no family/friends/social issues, and still it was a giant emotional & mental upheaval.


----------



## ENTPreneur

wolf12345 said:


> OK guys, so how would you describe following experiences - as Ne, Ni, Si or perhaps some other function?
> 
> *- When I am thinking about something, or perceiving something from my external enviroment (usually when I concentrate intentionally on external object or on a thought) I am coming directly from A to E, skipping points B, C, D.*
> 
> An example is when I talk with someone (especially someone close to me, like my gf or friend), I literally know what she (he) is going to say, after she (he) just started the sentence. Like yesterday, my gf said "what…" and stared at some point; I interrupted her and answered her full question, which was "what we are going to do about our next week trip". The question wasn't correlated with our previous talk in any way, nor we spoke about it in last few days. So there was no correlation, which could logically suggest me what she was going to ask; anyways, the question was obvious for me.
> 
> Same thing applies to thinking about ideas; this happens especially after I wake up. E.g. today I thought about my MA thesis. I think about something (let's name it A) and then it's far implication suddenly come in (let's say, E). Those realizations are quite strong; actually it feel's like you just realized something obvious, what for some unknown reasons you didn't realize till now. It is so obvious, that I never feel like I need write it down. The problem is I usually forget those "E realizations" soon after they arrive. Today I spent 2 hours trying to "recover" this realization and write it down in my paper. The problem is, when you don't have point's B, C, D you can't follow straight line of reasoning, hence only way you have is to go into similar "feeling state", in which you were when the realization came, to recover it.
> 
> *- Often those realizations are more powerfull, random and sometimes triggered by some external object/situation.*
> E.g. I look at my purring cat, and suddenly realizes he is a living creature exactly the same as I am, and then I „see” his whole „life” in a new perspective.
> External object may also be a book character, or sth similar. E.g. after my favourite book character dies I suddenly realize something obvious (I am mortal) but in a way that changes whole understanding of my life or the universe in one second.
> As you see essence of those realizations is quite banal, but sometimes it let me see everything in a new perspective. I must also say this is usually quite scary.
> 
> 
> To be clear: this stuff (both points) happens usually few times a day - not all the time. Especially when I talk to someone about feelings/personal stuff, he/she have to explain me things slowly in a A>B>C>D>E way.
> 
> *- I have a vivid imagination which literally driving me crazy sometimes.* I can start thinking about Ockham Razor and finish deliberating about tampons. This is more like A>B>C but totally out of control. Yeah I know everybody can have this sometimes. But I can't stop it, it gave me a lot of troubles in school. I couldn't concentrate most of the time (especially on subjects I don't find interesting). I have no idea, why my brain belive that tampons are more important than History or Geography. It kinda reminds Joyce's _Ullysess_ and stream of consciousness. (BTW I didn't like that book). Althought I might just be lazy and looking for excuses : P
> 
> 
> *- I can „put myself in someone's shoes” or „go inside his head”. *I can „emulate” someone (or group of people) desires and needs inside my head, if I concentrate enough. It isn’t like empathy, it is „knowledge”, not „feeling”. It helps in business (in building product’s and in marketing). On the other hand I sometimes notice things in other’s behavior, or know things, I don’t necessarily want to know (this happens often when I think about someone a lot). Like my ex said, she was afraid of me, cause „after one look on her I can see her mood, desires and what she had for breakfast yesterday ”. Again, this usually happens only with people I am intentionally thinking about or people currently closely related with me.
> EDIT: forgot to add, that I am usually very disconnected from my physical enviroment; basically I see ONLY things related to what I am currently thinking about.
> 
> 
> Now question for the function experts: are above experiences coherent with any Jung function? For me it sounds like Ne-Ni-Ti mix. I talked with people about those experiences and they have no clue what the heck I am talking about. Jung himself wrote about Ni Ne functions in a very "cloudy" manner. Internet sources are incoherent.
> Maybe explaining my experiences will help someone else; for sure it will help me ;-)
> 
> 
> PS Apologies for my low-grade english; I don't speak english natively.
> 
> PPS Yes I did read this topic and many more.



I would say Ne... But not just Ne- Its paired with other functions to produce those results. I have these exact traits as well.


----------



## alexibaka

Ni Vs Ne is simply convergent thinking vs divergent thinking, Ni sees the big picture and narrows it down, while Ne sees one thing and expands it from there eventually making the big picture. Ni's are better at multiple choice, Nes are better at free thinking essays if that helps


----------



## TaylorS

nujabes said:


> Well maybe you should try to understand how they work when writing high-grade essays
> 
> That actually happens to be my area of expertise - Ne-driven essays.
> 
> An Ne essay starts off with a clearly defined topic or idea. Don't expect a roadmap in the introduction, since Ne doesn't know where the essay is going to go until it is written. Rather, some conceptual background and perhaps an analogy.
> 
> Then the fun starts. Ne starts picking up speed, taking the original idea and extrapolating. Alternate explanation 1 happens. OOOH SHINY - tangential anecdote that provides a helpful insight... which opens the door for alternative explanation 2. But what about explanation 1? Which is better? Through that examination, alternative explanation 3 is created. Tangent... Tangent... How are these related? Oh, that's how. Wow, that's actually pretty insightful. BOOM alternative explanation 4.
> 
> On and on until Ne runs out of steam or until my Ti says enough is enough. Then the hardest part: writing a coherent conclusion to an Ne essay.


Get out of my head!!! :shocked:


----------



## Entropic

Optimist Mind said:


> Are other xNxJs really that bad at backtracking the sources of their impressions...? Tracing back causes is typically where I get my confidence from when I speculate...


No, usually not. I can trace specific moments or instances at least when it comes to greater personal revelations like I remember that moment or that situation that left such and such impression on me at the time but I didn't quite see the overall and overarching pattern it would form until the insight was fully revealed to me. 



> I did like the Ne-reasoning resembling a family tree analogy though, I think that's pretty accurate. It likely is true in Se for the same reason though. _Maybe_ these sorts of things should be described in Pi vs Pe and Ji vs Je metaphors?


I tend to think of my own thinking or reasoning process like a pyramid but starting from the top or even better, a flowchart.


----------



## TaylorS

Magic Mirror said:


> When I was still in school, I used to write my essays the Ne style! Of course I learned to stay on topic and actually reach a conclusion, but my essays tended to be reallly looong, because while writing, all kinds of related (or not so related) ideas kept popping up in my head. About half of the writing time went into actually _writing_ the essay and the other half went into painstakingly trying to condense it. Condensing my essays was my idea of hell, because while re-reading my text, I spontaneously kept coming up with ideas that would make the essays even _longer_.
> 
> My idea of a writer's heaven would be having an outline of a story and _adding_ stuff to make the story longer. Didn't really think it was an Ne thing, but now that you mentioned it, it makes sense. (Of course, as a Ti-dom, my idea of heaven would also include proof-reading the story and re-wording it until it's grammatically perfect. :tongue
> 
> While lurking at the INTJ and especially ENTJ forums, I've been envious of the NTJ writing style: in general, they seem to write posts that are short and to the point but express everything that is needed to express. I guess it's Ni coupled with Te that makes their texts so to-the-point. ISTPs are good at it too, though in general they sometimes seem _ultra_ to-the-point with their famous witty one-liners. I envy them as well.


I relate to this very well. Even, say, on internet message boards. Say I'm typing a post over on Reddit /r/socialism. I'll type up a few paragraphs, post it, then feel compelled to edit my post because I think of more things to add to it.


----------



## TaylorS

bookbutterfly said:


> Hmm, this thread was really helpful in confirming for me that I'm most definitely an Ni-user. I had my doubts before, and I can see how the two are similar in a few ways (they like the abstract, theories, symbols, interpreting things), but I'm not as free-thinking, seeing-all-the-possibilities like Ne-users. In fact, the mere idea of having too many possibilities makes me nervous... O.O
> 
> Anywho, I was looking at a chat I recently had with my INTP friend, and it made me smile because the whole thing is the epitome of an Ni vs Ne convo. We first started talking about one topic, but then my friend started alluding to other topics, from which grew full-on multiple side conversations between her and me. It was EXTREMELY difficult for me to catch up with all these side conversations going on simultaneously, and a few times, I even converged two topics together (for example, we were talking about The Big Bang Theory in one side convo, and then MBTI in another, and I ended up mixing up the two by talking about one of the character's type, haha). It was ridiculously fun, but extremely fast-paced and very difficult for me to jump from one topic track to another. So...that's a pretty good example of Ni and Ne in action for ya.
> 
> Also, I'm curious...Ne-users, do you tend to have multiple things going on in your head at once? Do you guys like multi-tasking, especially in your head? And Ni-users, do you tend to just think about one thing and only jump to another topic if there's some natural flow or if (obviously) something externally distracted you from your original topic of thought? I find that I can't think about more than one thing, and I have to just keep drilling about one thing until I jump to another topic, which is usually related. (Or maybe I'm just someone with low intelligence who can't think about more than one thing at a time, and it has nothing to do with functions...)


I'm an Ne-user and I actually HATE multi-tasking because I need to be really focused in order to deal with all the ideas floating around in my head while I am trying to do a task. Otherwise I get information overload.


----------



## Entropic

TaylorS said:


> I'm an Ne-user and I actually HATE multi-tasking because I need to be really focused in order to deal with all the ideas floating around in my head while I am trying to do a task. Otherwise I get information overload.


In socionics, ability to multitask is more applied to what is described as result-oriented types, and for the Ne-ego types it would be MBTI equivalent of INTP and ENFP. ENTPs and INFPs would thus not be inclined towards multitasking, based on this understanding of type.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Process_and_result


----------



## TaylorS

Pterodactyl said:


> Okay. Please give me your explanation of the difference between Ni and Ne, then.
> 
> That's quite the rash assumption, calling me an INTP when you're only able to view a small angle of my personality. Why is it always the INTJs who claim to know who I am from what they see of me in a handful of forum posts better than I do? It seems every one I run into in discussions such as these is rather arrogant in their impulsive typings, perhaps being a predominant Te user weakens the understanding of the complexities of the multifaceted human mind. I suppose it's the Te's instinct to build broad sweeping judgments and characterizations and not so much check for inconsistencies and analyze for logic like Ti. You underestimate the use of Ti in many INFJs. Look at Noam Chomsky, he is Ti-heavy as hell but still essentially a definite INFJ. I use Ti because I adhere to a view of skepticism and like to try to understand everything without only assuming based on my intuition. I suppose it's largely from my interest in science and need to think scientifically inspired by my ISTP 5w6 father. If I just go off my Ni feeding me ideas and positions then I don't truly know the inner workings of the subject, and I would be unable to rationalize my ideas and thus not grounded in the fullness of reality. And what would someone leading with Ni look like in posts on internet forums anyway?


 Chomsky an INFJ? I thought he was pretty much THE stereotype of an INTP?


----------



## TaylorS

ephemereality said:


> Psychological type is not your personality, but it's a specific outlook of how you shape and make sense of the world around you. It's more like a worldview, a perspective or a lens that you wear on a daily basis than some personality trait or such.


This is a pet peeve of mine. Psychological type is not personality type. I am an extravert in the Jungian sense, but I am also Reserved under the Big 5, and so I "look" like an Introvert. That is why most MBTI tests suck, they are basically Big 5 tests without the Neuroticism scale, they are not actually indicating your PSYCHOLOGICAL type. I test as an INFP for that reason, even though I am definitely an Ne-Dom. Aditionally, IMO, these tests tend to mistype people with Dom or Aux Fi as T types because FPs are not necessarily high in Big 5 Agreeableness.


----------



## TaylorS

ephemereality said:


> In socionics, ability to multitask is more applied to what is described as result-oriented types, and from the Ne-ego types it would be MBTI equivalent of INTP and ENFP. ENTPs and INFPs would thus not be inclined towards multitasking, based on this understanding of type.
> 
> Process and result - Wikisocion


THANK YOU! That settles it, I'm an ENTP.


----------



## Entropic

TaylorS said:


> This is a pet peeve of mine. Psychological type is not personality type. I am an extravert in the Jungian sense, but I am also Reserved under the Big 5, and so I "look" like an Introvert. That is why most MBTI tests suck, they are basically Big 5 tests without the Neuroticism scale, they are not actually indicating your PSYCHOLOGICAL type. I test as an INFP for that reason, even though I am definitely an Ne-Dom. Aditionally, IMO, these tests tend to mistype people with Dom or Aux Fi as T types because FPs are not necessarily high in Big 5 Agreeableness.


Agreed. The J/P label also quite often misidentifies the actual function it's supposed to identify, especially for introverts, because it confuses the fact that IJs have an inferior Pe function which plays a much larger role in the psyche than the auxiliary logically should. MBTI over-emphasizes the importance of the auxiliary as a whole, in my opinion. Hence I most often come out as an INTP rather than an INTJ. 

Also, I think F doms in general often mistype on the MBTI test because Feeling is often removed from actual feelings and can be experienced as very rational and logical to the Feeling type.

Additionally, I think N is poorly understood on tests, often catering more to Ne than it does Ni, so many Ni types may mistype as S types for this reason. I have a surprisingly low N score on MBTI tests (around 60%) despite being a clear Jungian Ni dominant, because I don't identify with the more zany and imaginative cognition of Ne. Similarly, I over-score on T because I don't favor Fe-style of social interaction that is as you point out, equally biased on the MBTI test, even though Feeling may at times have a greater importance in my psyche than Thinking does. I sometimes wonder if I'm a Jungian NiTiFi type (since Jung thought differentiated functions should take the same orientation as the ego), because I don't feel I overly favor T nor F, but I know for a fact that I'm Fi so.



TaylorS said:


> THANK YOU! That settles it, I'm an ENTP.


lol, glad it was useful? But yeah, socionics has some nice nuances like that, that can be useful when trying to identify between very similar types.


----------



## TaylorS

Leila said:


> Hi,
> 
> I just wanted to comment here because I am a sensor with absolutely no ability to use either Ni or Ne. In fact I came across this thread because I was trying to understand what exactly it is.
> This has caused me some problems in different aspects of my life (trying to understand symbolism in poetry, cultural anthropology, art, etc etc.). The biggest and most recent problem is that I have only realized (in my 30s) that I am gay.
> I am married, and my husband (an INTJ) just cannot understand how the hell I didn't connect the million signals my brain has been sending me since my teens.
> Signal examples: Only fantasizing about women; never having a connection with a man that was more than friendly; having to either close my eyes or watch porn during sex…the list goes on.
> My husband said, if those things were happening to me, I would sit down and figure out WHY I am doing those things or feel that way. Well, I never thought about it and my brain never ever connected the dots.
> I am still struggling to understand how I missed all the signals, but I do believe that it has something to do with a lack of ability to recognize or see patterns…any comments or feedback would be so helpful. Thanks
> 
> I should add that I am STILL having trouble accepting that I am actually gay, despite all the
> evidence and the fact that I just cannot have sex with a man. I just don't trust these signals and I don't know why (


This may be from your tertiary Fe. Were you raised in an area where homosexuality was considered deviant and sinful? Fe is concerned with harmonizing with collective values and you may have unconsciously repressed those "signals" that threatened those collective values.


----------



## zinnia

ephemereality said:


> Also, I think F doms in general often mistype on the MBTI test because Feeling is often removed from actual feelings and can be experienced as very rational and logical to the Feeling type.


This is something I've noticed many users here have some difficulty understanding. Not that it's an easy thing to figure out what you do so naturally, that you don't notice... It took me forever to get those stupid tests out of my mind, constantly telling me I am NT, so yep.

It does feel logical. I find it difficult to understand how others (non-F types) make decisions - how can you not filter out what matters, what you want, what you don't, what is appropriate, etc? (I can understand from a detached point of view but I can't truly experience it, as I will always throw in valuation somewhere. I imagine other types feel the same way about their preference.)


----------



## d e c a d e n t

ephemereality said:


> Also, I think F doms in general often mistype on the MBTI test because Feeling is often removed from actual feelings and can be experienced as very rational and logical to the Feeling type.


Hmm, I find that kind of interesting because I've never experienced myself as very logical (sure, I'm capable of logical thoughts, not being brain damaged and all, but never could I see myself as a Logical type). I guess I'm pretty emotional in general, so I still feel emotional about things concerning my ego-functions... idk. >_>



zinnia said:


> *I find it difficult to understand how others (non-F types) make decisions - how can you not filter out what matters, what you want, what you don't*, what is appropriate, etc? (I can understand from a detached point of view but I can't truly experience it, as I will always throw in valuation somewhere. I imagine other types feel the same way about their preference.)


^I agree with that, though. It seems strange to me to not be aware of those things, even if I'm not always _sure _of them myself. So strange to imagine _not _making value-judgements, lol.


----------



## Entropic

zinnia said:


> It does feel logical. I find it difficult to understand how others (non-F types) make decisions - how can you not filter out what matters, what you want, what you don't, what is appropriate, etc? (I can understand from a detached point of view but I can't truly experience it, as I will always throw in valuation somewhere. I imagine other types feel the same way about their preference.)


As an irrational type, I have issues with this in general. I have tried to understand how I make decisions for at least over half a year now and I still don't understand it. Decision-making isn't necessarily something I'm prone to doing in general. It's more that I just end up doing things but mostly it feels more like I just kind of drift around. Action itself seems to be something that occurs because action is required but I don't really spend any deeper thought as to why that action etc. Things are a little more... simple, black and white? Either I do or I don't, but I don't necessarily weigh my everyday actions as I assume a judging dominant would. Which is to say that I don't make any judgements at all because I do, but figuring out decisions is kind of painstaking at some level. I don't like doing them unless I have to. 

I also notice that Fi tends to guide Se in some way, like I was arguing with my girlfriend this morning whether I should get out of bed or not (yeah no comment <_<), and I didn't want to because I kind of liked the sensation of being in my bed. Stuff like that. 

With that said, I am extremely unaware of the feeling tones Jung's referring to when he describes the Feeling dominant, though. It's something I need to consciously make myself aware of which is very mentally taxing, for the same reason over-focusing on Te is taxing. I am not sure how true that is for others when it comes to the auxiliary, but I find that it's something that I almost have to switch on or off. When I rely more on Te, I definitely notice that I spend more importance on facts, systems, organization, structure etc. It's not something I can keep up doing all the time as it's draining for other reasons. Ni and Se definitely feel the most natural, though Se is more something that's difficult because I feel inadequate at it, rather than it being taxing in the same way Te and Fi are taxing.


----------

