# INTP developed Ni



## spicytea (Nov 10, 2012)

Is it possible for an INTP to have "high" Ni? I've sometimes even questioned whether I really am an INTP or not because of this.

Or I might be confusing Ni with Ne...

But anyways, what do you guys think?


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

I know I experience it consciously, which for me would mean it's a lower-order function (although I don't think that functions have an order, per se, or if they do they vary person to person). 

There's a lot of information around here about Ni and a couple of threads specifically devoted to it, if you care to find them.

For the OP, though, why do you think you have "high" Ni?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

spicytea said:


> Is it possible for an INTP to have "high" Ni? I've sometimes even questioned whether I really am an INTP or not because of this.
> 
> Or I might be confusing Ni with Ne...
> 
> But anyways, what do you guys think?


You cannot be an _INTP_ with high Ni (or Ni at all) because it is Ne that makes you a 'P' unless you are claiming to have an undifferentiated intuition function (in which case you still cannot claim an _MBTI_ type because MBTI type dynamics generally doesn't acknowledge this). That being said, can you be an introverted thinker with a lot of Ni? Probably. As is often pointed out Jung himself likely viewed himself as Ti-Ni dominant, but again that is not an MBTI type.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

I don't think it's possible, functions are value systems not functions in the colloquial sense.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm wondering this myself, though I'm beginning to think it's Ne with Ti keeping it in control.


----------



## SharkT00th (Sep 5, 2012)

Probably not, it's a shadow function meaning it's not repressed, but you are not going to have "good use" of the function. This is not to say that You won't experience Ni at all, but when you do its going to feel very very strange. It will allow you're Ne though to learn a few tricks though.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

What's your definition of Ni?


----------



## spicytea (Nov 10, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> What's your definition of Ni?


I'm just going to give you the *link* to how I define Ni.

But it might just be the cooperation between Ti and Ne that makes me "think" that I might be "using" Ni.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> You cannot be an _INTP_ with high Ni (or Ni at all) because it is Ne that makes you a 'P' unless you are claiming to have an undifferentiated intuition function (in which case you still cannot claim an _MBTI_ type because MBTI type dynamics generally doesn't acknowledge this). That being said, can you be an introverted thinker with a lot of Ni? Probably. As is often pointed out Jung himself likely viewed himself as Ti-Ni dominant, but again that is not an MBTI type.


Well then it's obvious, MBTI is a pile of rubbish, even Jung wouldn't back it. 

I claim that we all can consciously use any of the functions if we live a long enough.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

spicytea said:


> I'm just going to give you the *link* to how I define Ni.
> 
> But it might just be the cooperation between Ti and Ne that makes me "think" that I might be "using" Ni.


Ha, that's just a thread about what it means to other people. But what does it mean to you? How do you think it manifests?


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

spicytea said:


> Is it possible for an INTP to have "high" Ni? I've sometimes even questioned whether I really am an INTP or not because of this.
> 
> Or I might be confusing Ni with Ne...
> 
> But anyways, what do you guys think?


I'm actually a "high-N" INTP. My top three scores on the cog function tests are Ti, Ne, and Ni; and I have a lot of empathy with INFJs and even some similar working patterns.

Anything can be possible; we're individuals, not MBTI types. The types just give some frameworks that, the more we fit into, might be able to show us connecting things that could be valuable for us to know about how we think and perceive.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

Cosmicsense said:


> Well then it's obvious, MBTI is a pile of rubbish, even Jung wouldn't back it.
> 
> I claim that we all can consciously use any of the functions if we live a long enough.


In agreement with this somewhat; I don't consider MBTI or Jung the be-all and end- all authorities of the theory, I think it's able to be subjectively interpreted, too. I certainly don't fit the pattern; I have "high" T (kinda want to have scones with that ) with both Ti and Te.


----------



## Vianna (Jul 28, 2012)

I am an ENFP, but based on cognitive functions test I am INFP...My top 3 functions from highest to lowest are: Fi,Ni,Ne...So if I can be an INFP with Ni as a second highest function, why can't you be INTP with high Ni? I don't know... I just don't really understand this function typeing, like every ENFP have the same functions Ne,Fi,Te,Si...And what if my fuctions are Fi,Ni,Ne,Ti...What am I than? A wierd hybrid or someting?


----------



## Dommm (Oct 23, 2012)

Cosmicsense said:


> Well then it's obvious, MBTI is a pile of rubbish, even Jung wouldn't back it.
> 
> I claim that we all can consciously use any of the functions if we live a long enough.


People here like to throw ideas like that around, along with being able to change your type and other nonsense. 

I'm not saying it isn't possible, however there is very little to no objective evidence or proof for such notions, just hearsay and opinions.



endlessnameless said:


> I am an ENFP, but based on cognitive functions test I am INFP...My top 3 functions from highest to lowest are: Fi,Ni,Ne...So if I can be an INFP with Ni as a second highest function, why can't you be INTP with high Ni? I don't know... I just don't really understand this function typeing, like every ENFP have the same functions Ne,Fi,Te,Si...And what if my fuctions are Fi,Ni,Ne,Ti...What am I than? A wierd hybrid or someting?


Honestly I would call into question the validity of these function tests. How accurately can these tests actually gauge which functions you use?


----------



## spicytea (Nov 10, 2012)

Ellis Bell said:


> Ha, that's just a thread about what it means to other people. But what does it mean to you? How do you think it manifests?


Don't I count as "other people" though...?

But that's basically what it means for me (and how it manifests).


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Take a step back and analyze what the tests are really saying though.

When you take a CF test, you are most often asked to rate on a scale how much you "relate" with a given description of a behavioral tendency. It doesn't ask you to determine whether the description outlines the mechanism of your cognitive processing (that would be way too convoluted), it asks you to relate - or not - to an observable pattern. "I do this, I tend to do that." Unfortunately, none of these point to a conceivable function, only to a set of outputs that may or may not be related to the actual mechanism of a function. The tests make no nod to the millions of ways that any given function can be situated, to proceed to an equal number of behavioral patterns. In short, function description =/= "I do this or that." Function description = mental process. 

What's being missed here is the possibility of functions fitting into operant roles, and how that differs from being, simply, "developed" in a function. 

I find it very difficult to imagine an INTP, or any other type for that matter who uses Ni in the same way as an _NFJ or _NTJ, since it would be a competing cognitive mode - judgment and perception. Intelligibility is another story, and INTP usually don't have to translate much to understand information mediated by Ni (same with ENTP, ENFP, INFP etc). Developing a function and actually employing a function are very different concepts - I think most INTP have better-developed Ni than most sensors, but _N_J _use _it in a distinctive, reliant way.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i don't see why you couldn't have it as an aux. 

there is no real reason/rule of why the aux.'s have to develop in a certain way, or even that they _would _develop (differentiate) to begin with (or does anyone know why?). 

to me, it seems as if what was developed and brought under conscious control would be a pretty egocentric thing. i may not be using that word correctly--i mean it in the sense that it becomes what is necessary from the viewpoint of the dominant, and potentially, whatever is most "natural" (which again, most "natural" would be a subjective thing, pulled from the experience and world view of the dominant). but all of this--their dominant outlook--would rely on the relationship between their dominant and inferior; basically, what is the person allowing themselves to see/think/etc.

the above sounds like a very subjective experience, subject to follow a certain model (within reason) but also given the utmost room to maneuver within that model: dominant & inferior health/"flow of energy"-->dominant outlook/conscious self/what that person sees & acknowledges-->growth & development based off of a subjective* view of reality itself that falls in line with the conscious portion of the person

*(our view is never truly objective, hence the "subjective view" of reality)

i see it almost as some wide expanse that everyone draws from, but the more that is pulled from that expanse, and the further it is taken (e.g., becoming a conscious human being), the more it trickles down to space that can encompass only you. to say that everyone's development must come from a subjective interpretation of that expanse we all share, and yet it fits some x, y, z model without fail... it seems more like that nebulous/unknown area was just chained with a model that we could understand, and that may even fit some of the population as it mimics a section of that "subjective interpretation", but i really doubt it covers all grounds, and that if a person doesn't "fit it", then their type is wrong.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

spicytea said:


> Don't I count as "other people" though...?
> 
> But that's basically what it means for me (and how it manifests).


Yeah, but I think what I meant was, how do you experience it in real life? How do you distinguish it from Ne YOURSELF, setting aside what other people have said about the function? There's no way that you could possibly relate to all 11-plus or whatever pages of that thread. As a Ti dom, break it down for me.


----------



## spicytea (Nov 10, 2012)

Ellis Bell said:


> Yeah, but I think what I meant was, how do you experience it in real life? How do you distinguish it from Ne YOURSELF, setting aside what other people have said about the function? There's no way that you could possibly relate to all 11-plus or whatever pages of that thread. As a Ti dom, break it down for me.


 I get it. I didn't mean that I relate to all the pages though.

I could relate to what the OP said about Ni. That's what Ni is for me (I think...).

But, I think I've made judgements based on little information when it comes to both Ne and Ni. When I think about it, I probably don't encounter Ni as much as I thought I did, but it's simply the interaction between Ti and Ne that to me can somerimes seem like Ni. For example having many ideas and breaking them down to one.

All in all, my functions are most likely: Ti - Ne - Si - Fe. So I guess we can forget about the fact that this thread is somewhat about me, and instead (as some people already have) discuss whether it is possible to have a more developed Ni than Ne as an INTP (or any other type).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Eh, I doubt it - I mean, ISTP and INTP are two different types from the MBTI paradigm - you can't really have both Ne and Ni equally developed in conscious influence, that's not how type works. Sure, you might use Ni in a negative way largely toward unconscious aims (in other words, what you haven't accepted as true about yourself yet), but thinking of it as "developed" is the wrong way to look at it. For a function to be "developed," it has to jive with the person's conscious will, aims, and achievements, and in INTPs, this wouldn't necessarily be the case with Ni - I mean, these types might have varied amounts of function differentiation, such as a kind of ambiguous N function or S function or not - it's down to the individual, frankly (most probably prefer one mode over the other because you need some kind of consistent reliability for how to assert your perceptions toward finality, so if you prefer Si, then your intuitions will fall more in-line with an Ne course of intuition - if you prefer Ni, then your sensations will have to fall toward the Se end - the functions just work in pairs like that, there's no way around it). However, since auxiliaries are fundamentally inconsequential to the person's ego by-and-large, then having a definite orientation around them doesn't matter - most of the time, they will probably just reflect a general awareness of both orientations, although one end will probably be more negative than the other, because you can't posses an equal consciousness of both - one side has to get at least a little repressed so that you don't get disoriented (you might have some awareness of them though, unlike the inferior and demon). Most INTPs I know seem to conform well enough to the MBTI assumptions - same with ISTPs, otherwise I wouldn't have identified them as such. There's a long explanation for why you can't (largely based on the fact that you can't consciously operate with aims toward rationalizing intuition toward real world conditions and the content of your mind equally - it would make you delusional, because of the vast differences between the real world and the subject (you and your mental content), but since that part of my post got deleted once, I'm really not up to explaining it, lol (f**k). It doesn't matter anyway, rules are rules, you can't have it both ways. Just learn to look for the functions in yourself and see which one it is that's clearly more consciously familiar to you. It's not that difficult if you know what to look for (get some good information on the functions, and your guesses should be reasonable).


----------

