# Down The Rabbit Hole of Introverted iNtuiting.



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I am an INTJ. My primary cognitive function is introverted intuiting. What's that like to me? I'll try to show you.

Everything begins with the following assumption: everything begins with an assumption. Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. If an assumption works, then it serves a purpose. Purpose is arbitrary. Ideas are tools - a means to an end. Truth is totally irrelevant. Truth is simply a decision. Truth is faith and faith is conviction, and so is knowledge. Knowledge is also arbitrary. Cause and effect is all that exists. Cause and effect gives rise to systems. Systems exist, such as logic and math. Systems are arbitrary. A system is a perception. Perception is interpretation of information. All information is subjective. To observe a system is to create information. To choose a system is to create a purpose for information. Choice generates context for knowledge. Context generates truth. Truth generates conviction by means of repetition. Repeated information forms patterns of perception that give rise to conviction by means of predictability. Predictability is an assumption. Everything ends with an assumption, the same way it began.

There is no ultimate point to anything. There is only what I choose, and what I am aware of choosing. It doesn't matter what my choice is. I already made the choice. It doesn't matter if I am aware of choosing. I already made the choice to be aware of choosing or not. Choices only exist within a system.

I just exist. I am an arbitrary system of systems within a system of systems.

I cannot think outside the box. I cannot think inside the box. I cannot transcend the box.

I am the box.

I am the rabbit hole.


----------



## Sketchy Cadet (Jan 8, 2011)

That was awesome. You deserve a medal.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

What the hell? xD I can't tell whether to love this or smack myself repeatedly in the face until I figure it out.


----------



## miss me (May 26, 2011)

Benjamin Austin said:


> Cause and effect is all that exists.


Concept of cause and effect is arbitrary.

This is pretty like a poem made of mathematics...!


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I probably could have worded it better. I wasn't trying to be rational or consistent. It was a free-writing exercise. A "brain dump" if you will.

Most of it is potentially false, beyond falsification, or generally meaningless without an arbitrary context. The purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate the typical way I assume an Ni might think, based on how I think, by letting consciousness stream without stopping to be Te about it.

If I just let my mind wander without stopping, the process is very nihilistic. Ideas are deconstructed, the underlying paradigm of thinking that gave rise to the idea is exposed, and then the idea is reconstructed within a new paradigm that suits my needs. By recognizing the paradigm itself, I can "get inside" the "box" which is the paradigm itself, and assert whatever principle I want within the box. It's the opposite of how most people think. I start outside, in the realm of the abstract, and I have to work my way back into the realm of the practical.

The box is like a game. If I see anything linear (a pattern) within the box I can determine the dimensions of the box itself - which is like saying if I know one rule of the game I can determine the entire premise of the game itself. Then I can either play by the rules, or, I can transcend the rules by applying new rules that don't negate the premise of the game. Back to the box analogy, I can alter the dimensions of the box without destroying it.

This can't always be done. If the box/game is extremely well balanced to begin with, then making any changes would destroy the system. In that senario my choices are to obey the system or to choose not to play the game.

I hope this makes sense.

A better way of putting it at the end of my original post would have been as follows:

I don't fall down the rabbit hole. I live in the rabbit hole.

I AM THE RABBIT.


----------



## miss me (May 26, 2011)

Can you end up back in the realm of the practical? Show me! *intrigued* (....because I find it hard to do.)


----------



## seepingfaucet (May 23, 2011)

"Choose again." - Hyperion Cantos


----------



## yesiknowbut (Oct 25, 2009)

I liked it, but I glazed over half way through and thought I really should be reading this cos I bet it's great, but...rabbit holes can be quite dark, can't they, and doesn't the comparison with a rabbit hole not quite fit because there is no end to the rabbit hole, it only emerges into another world altogether where reality is warped and full of possibility, and not at all back where it began, so does Ni always lead to Ne?

..which it doesn't, of course. Except in my world


----------



## XL Sweatshirt (Feb 11, 2011)

haha. I loved this.

Perhaps as a Ni-dom, you experience life as _being_ the rabbit or the rabbit hole.
Whereas, since it's my tertiary, I experience it as falling down the rabbit hole. It happens time to time.


----------



## Ubbo (Apr 22, 2011)

The hole is a lie. An illusion. It doesn't exist. It is nothingness. The void. Only the edges of the hole are real.


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

Ubbo said:


> The hole is a lie. An illusion. It doesn't exist. It is nothingness. The void. Only the edges of the hole are real.


Or a tea party where the cups are empty but nobody notices.


----------



## PeacePassion (Jun 9, 2009)

What if there is an objective reality? How would this affect your assumptions, even considering our perception of objective reality would still be subjective, at least to an extent? Or, would it? To know the objective reality, perhaps one must become- as in, the rabbit. Is your perception of the rabbit subjective still when you ARE the rabbit? Are we inherently blind to ourselves, until we learn to navigate the reflection, until we circle home?


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

How would a subjective perception of an objective reality differ from a subjective reality?


----------



## yesiknowbut (Oct 25, 2009)

...and does it really matter? We can't know if there is an objective reality.

Which leaves me to believe whatever I want, which is coool.....


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

This is a very good explanation of Ni. I recognize a lot of my own thoughts from there.

My Ne-Ti friends can't see this. For them, stuff can be "true" or "false". For me it's just a matter of perspective. I have to assume a starting point for my thoughts, but that's just arbitrary and momentary. Logic is great for doing calculus, but hindu philosophy is better for achieving moksha. My perception of "truth" is a quick fix built to achieve a certain goal. I break it down to zero when I'm done.


----------



## psynite (Feb 7, 2011)

I do things like this too. The Ni mind dump, I do it a lot, its kind of fun. The cool part is when you look back at it and even though its gibberish, you still remember the thought pattern behind it. I can even see the small amount of Te in this too.


----------



## luzluna (Apr 7, 2011)

I am everything that has arbitrarily chosen to exist on the other side of the rabbit hole.


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

Nothingness is a dish best served existentially.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

... That's actually pretty accurate. 

PS Who says NTs can't do poetry?


----------



## PeacePassion (Jun 9, 2009)

cactus_waltz said:


> How would a subjective perception of an objective reality differ from a subjective reality?


 Well, a subjective perception of an objective reality can be aligned then with that objective reality, can have a dynamic relationship in perception with that object reality, in other words, well- IMO an objective reality would mean that there is such thing as Truth, whereas if there are only purely subjective realities existence/consciousness would only then be a mishmash of illusions, wouldn't it?


----------



## Blocklos (Feb 22, 2011)

If what quantum mechanics tells us is really true, maybe everything we consider subjective and objective forms of reality really do exist and do not exist simultaneously, making Ni a form of Sensate perception, but rather than sensing the most proximal forms of reality, we are sensing the other realities? We call them possibilities, but really we are just sensing another actually present reality, distilling it, translating it, and making it part of this reality. This explains how Ni can just throw an 'AHA!' moment at us, or a fully visualized solution to a problem, because it found it in another reality via quantum. Our connecting the dots is really just us sensing the realities. 
(This is probably total BS, but since you were Ni dumping, I did too, haha)


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Blocklos said:


> If what quantum mechanics tells us is really true, maybe everything we consider subjective and objective forms or reality really do exist and do not exist simultaneously, making Ni a form of Sensate perception, but rather than sensing the most proximal forms of reality, we are sensing the other realities? We call them possibilities, but really we are just sensing another actually present reality, distilling it, translating it, and making it part of this reality. This explains how Ni can just throw an 'AHA!' moment at us, or a fully visualized solution to a problem, because it found it in another reality via quantum. Our connecting the dots is really just us sensing the realities.
> (This is probably total BS, but since you were Ni dumping, I did too, haha)


Ni-dom makes us the meta-observer?

This could have extraordinary consequences within the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of quantum physics.

I, personally, reserve my judgment on that interpretation.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Perhaps science itself is...

Well, nevermind. Now is not the time to finish that sentence.


----------



## Blocklos (Feb 22, 2011)

Maybe not an observer at all. Maybe just a pattern signature identified and mirrored somewhere in brain circuitry. 
Could the electrical phenomena of the brain grant non-observer quantum access to other 'possibilities'? I don't know, you tell Ni.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

OPs intro is now hanging on my wall for future contemplation!


----------



## Heat Mirage (Jan 28, 2010)

From famous director Luc Jacquet comes the next cinematic epic: March of the Easily Impressed Intellects

High school poetry meets Discovery Channel metaphysics. What does this have to do with Ni? I've thought this way before, my ISFJ fiance has *definitely* thought like this before. Why are people so impressed by basic tenements of metaphysics just because it's mixed in with flowery words? Is everyone here high? I bet I could write a limerick about hypothesis regarding the source of gravity in the universe and you people would be lining up to thumbtack that shit on your walls. Get your noses out of each other's asses Ni-doms.

EDIT EDIT: OP's post is pretty cool and all, but jesus, the rest of you have to get out more if this is losing you or you think this is some kind of testament to the awesomeness of Ni dom-ness.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Heat Mirage said:


> From famous director Luc Jacquet comes the next cinematic epic: March of the Easily Impressed Intellects
> 
> High school poetry meets Discovery Channel metaphysics. What does this have to do with Ni? I've thought this way before, my ISFJ fiance has *definitely* thought like this before. Why are people so impressed by basic tenements of metaphysics just because it's mixed in with flowery words? Is everyone here high? I bet I could write a limerick about hypothesis regarding the source of gravity in the universe and you people would be lining up to thumbtack that shit on your walls. Get your noses out of each other's asses Ni-doms.
> 
> EDIT EDIT: OP's post is pretty cool and all, but jesus, the rest of you have to get out more if this is losing you or you think this is some kind of testament to the awesomeness of Ni dom-ness.


Hahaha!
This is great!

You are obviously *SOOOO *much smarter than all of us combined.
We bow to your Ti/Ne awesomeness!!!


----------



## Heat Mirage (Jan 28, 2010)

@hornet
Probably should have bolded the part where I said I was smarter or my type was better when you quoted me. 'Cept you can't really. Cause I didn't say it. My only point was that this was a ridiculous circle jerk for Ni-doms when none of it was even related to being Ni-dominant in the first place. I wouldn't presume that any type is smarter than any other and you acting like I was saying that is precisely what I'm talking about. I'm not saying I'm smarter than anyone else and even if I did it would have ZERO to do with type.

*No type is smarter than any other nor is any type capable of grasping, understanding, or considering any topic, subject or concept better than any other.*


----------



## Dino (Mar 25, 2011)

Ni = Being very abstract and mystical for no reason.


----------



## PeacePassion (Jun 9, 2009)

Blocklos said:


> If what quantum mechanics tells us is really true, maybe everything we consider subjective and objective forms of reality really do exist and do not exist simultaneously, making Ni a form of Sensate perception, but rather than sensing the most proximal forms of reality, we are sensing the other realities? We call them possibilities, but really we are just sensing another actually present reality, distilling it, translating it, and making it part of this reality. This explains how Ni can just throw an 'AHA!' moment at us, or a fully visualized solution to a problem, because it found it in another reality via quantum. Our connecting the dots is really just us sensing the realities.
> (This is probably total BS, but since you were Ni dumping, I did too, haha)


Actually, this makes perfect sense to Ni! (me- Ni sounds like me- feel the need to clarify before i get yelled at)(other people are doing it too!) - anyway, i honestly do believe in an ultimate objective reality, however, sometimes i wonder if it's somehow made up of the collective individual subjective realities, and/or if our individual subjective realities form groups, like, if we can connect and explore each other's realities via a connection where our subjective realities overlap. they seem like transdimensional bubbles to me


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Heat Mirage said:


> @hornet
> Probably should have bolded the part where I said I was smarter or my type was better when you quoted me. 'Cept you can't really. Cause I didn't say it. My only point was that this was a ridiculous circle jerk for Ni-doms when none of it was even related to being Ni-dominant in the first place. I wouldn't presume that any type is smarter than any other and you acting like I was  saying that is precisely what I'm talking about. I'm not saying I'm smarter than anyone else and even if I did it would have ZERO to do with type.
> 
> *No type is smarter than any other nor is any type capable of grasping, understanding, or considering any topic, subject or concept better than any other.*











Yes start rowing!
What are you talking about???
All I see is an annoying little boy* trying and failing* to dominate me with words over the Internet.
And for no other reason than me giving another person a compliment.
Are you jealous?

This would be a great time to use the ignore option actually!
Never had the need for that before. 
Now you can feel like a special snowflake too, being my first ignored forum member! =D


----------



## Heat Mirage (Jan 28, 2010)

hornet said:


> http://www.digit.no/wip4/image2
> All I see is an annoying little boy[B] trying and failing[/B] to dominate me with words over the Internet.
> [/QUOTE]
> 
> If that's what you got out of what I wrote then...okay. You missed the message completely. Other people won't. I'm not sure what you're flipping out about but you can ignore me all you like if it makes you feel better.


----------



## MentationAway (Feb 21, 2011)

Heat Mirage said:


> @hornet
> Probably should have bolded the part where I said I was smarter or my type was better when you quoted me. 'Cept you can't really. Cause I didn't say it. *My only point was that this was a ridiculous circle jerk for Ni-doms when none of it was even related to being Ni-dominant in the first place.* I wouldn't presume that any type is smarter than any other and you acting like I was saying that is precisely what I'm talking about. I'm not saying I'm smarter than anyone else and even if I did it would have ZERO to do with type.
> 
> *No type is smarter than any other nor is any type capable of grasping, understanding, or considering any topic, subject or concept better than any other.*


Who are you to judge what is related to Ni and what is not? The whole of what the OP wrote obviously conveyed a concept which other Ni people identified them selves with. Ni is very abstract, and the OP took a rather poetic approach; which means it is open for interpretation. Look not at the specific word, but at the abstract whole.

Why do you feel the need to trash a conversation between people who are trying to better understand something about them selves? I see no one stating that Ni would be better then other functions here...


----------



## caramel_choctop (Sep 20, 2010)

So... absolutely everything is subjective, is that what Ni's about?
THERE IS NO SPOON. 
(I'm not trying to be facetious, I genuinely want to make sure I understand.)


----------



## Akrasiel (Oct 25, 2009)

Hmm. This is a nice poem, but more so displays a perspective on a thought process rather than the tho0ught process in and of itself. I like it, but I find when actually describing Ni, as an INTJ, Te still manifests quite vibrantly. 

If you remove Te from and INTJ's experience of Ni, then you are simply describing the function itself, and not how it is used within the individual's thought process as a whole.


----------



## Heat Mirage (Jan 28, 2010)

MentationAway said:


> Who are you to judge what is related to Ni and what is not? The whole of what the OP wrote obviously conveyed a concept which other Ni people identified them selves with. Ni is very abstract, and the OP took a rather poetic approach; which means it is open for interpretation. Look not at the specific word, but at the abstract whole.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to trash a conversation between people who are trying to better understand something about them selves? I see no one stating that Ni would be better then other functions here...


You're missing the point too...I'm not trashing anyone, but the focus of the topic was that it was an abstract poetic interpretation of how Ni-dominant people think, *but* *if that's the case why am I aware of so many other people who think in just the same way that aren't Ni-doms?* I was just trying to point out that it's a bit presumptuous to assume this way of thinking is exclusive or especially indicative of Ni. I think it's fairly common for people to attribute things like intelligence, poetry, abstraction or subjective, open-minded views of the universe to individual functions when any other person regardless of function is just as capable of it as well. That sort of thing goes too often overlooked I think.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

So , if i think that what i know now could be the fruit of wrong assumptions , if when i discuss a stuff i think about the assumption that are been made and discuss them in my head , if i try to define more precisely concepts that are made in discussion or simply i notice that they could be different from the current assumption, could i consider it a Ni stuff?
It could be a Ti or Ne stuff as well i think ... I'm asking to understand if my grasp of Ni is exact.


----------



## shasha001 (Oct 19, 2010)

Heat mirage you are trashing don't try to cover it up First off you asked if everyone on here is high and you claim you have thought of this before and you can come up with better that is trashing. Also you are trashing Ni dom you said Ni dom need to get out of each others asses and you are implying we think we are totally awesome which that wasnt said at all...an Ni dom was only trying to explain Ni from their personal experience. Sure you didnt say "im smarter" but your are implying that when you make comments that you can apparently come up with better stuff like hornet said "we will bow to your Ti/Ne awesomeness....since you can come up with better stuff come on post your limerick, we are dying to post your shit on our walls hahaha get over yourself already...


----------



## caramel_choctop (Sep 20, 2010)

Heat Mirage said:


> You're missing the point too...I'm not trashing anyone, but the focus of the topic was that it was an abstract poetic interpretation of how Ni-dominant people think, *but* *if that's the case why am I aware of so many other people who think in just the same way that aren't Ni-doms?* I was just trying to point out that it's a bit presumptuous to assume this way of thinking is exclusive or especially indicative of Ni. I think it's fairly common for people to attribute things like intelligence, poetry, abstraction or subjective, open-minded views of the universe to individual functions when any other person regardless of function is just as capable of it as well. That sort of thing goes too often overlooked I think.


I'd like to draw your attention to @Abraxas 's post: "Most of it is potentially false, beyond falsification, or generally meaningless without an arbitrary context. The purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate the typical way I assume an Ni might think, based on how I think, by letting consciousness stream without stopping to be Te about it." 

It's 'pure' Ni as a cognitive function.

No one is saying only Ni-doms think this way. And I agree with you in that 'deep thinking', poetry and abstract thought are often stereotyped to iNtuitors; but remember we ALL use each of the 8 functions. Just because people who aren't Ni are perfectly capable of abstract thought, and sometimes/often do think in this way, doesn't make the OP's post less valid for (many) Ni-doms.


----------



## iMarieish (Jun 5, 2011)

My primary function is to accept everything as true until it is proven to be false.

I'm gullible. -__-


----------



## Heat Mirage (Jan 28, 2010)

shasha001 said:


> Heat mirage you are trashing don't try to cover it up First off you asked if everyone on here is high and you claim you have thought of this before and you can come up with better that is trashing. Also you are trashing Ni dom you said Ni dom need to get out of each others asses and you are implying we think we are totally awesome which that wasnt said at all...an Ni dom was only trying to explain Ni from their personal experience. Sure you didnt say "im smarter" but your are implying that when you make comments that you can apparently come up with better stuff like hornet said "we will bow to your Ti/Ne awesomeness....since you can come up with better stuff come on post your limerick, we are dying to post your shit on our walls hahaha get over yourself already...


I was being facetious, it's part of my humor. It may be a tad difficult to believe but I don't actually think anyone here is high (though I wouldn't rule out the possibility). And nowhere did I say if I wrote a limerick it would have been 'better' by any means, just that a lot of the people who lauded this thread for it's particular merits would probably have eaten it up (again, being facetious anyway). I'm a little irritated that people like you and Hornet seem to keep ignoring the entire point I was attempting to get across because you're so offended. I had no problem with OP's post as, just as I said, I think it's pretty cool. My lighthearted jabs went to the people who posted after him. You may feel free to ignore all of my other previous posts if you're so hung up on them but that doesn't change the main point which I've already spelled out.

EDIT: And apparently those of you who think I was trying to 'bash' Ni (which I was not) was doing so on the basis of having 'superior' functions...Ironically saying any function is superior to any other is pretty fundamental to the point I was making. How do you even come up with that idea after what I've said? I can't stress just how ridiculous a notion that is. I've addressed it in a post before but I'll say it a second time in this paragraph just to make sure that misconception doesn't continue. *I do not consider any function 'better' in any measurable respect with regards to intelligence or ability to grasp concepts both simple and abstract, complex and fundamental. This applies to my own functions as well. At no point in my replies was I ever attempting to infer that my functions were better or worse than Ni.*

EDIT EDIT:


caramel_choctop said:


> No one is saying only Ni-doms think this way. And I agree with you in that 'deep thinking', poetry and abstract thought are often stereotyped to iNtuitors; but remember we ALL use each of the 8 functions. Just because people who aren't Ni are perfectly capable of abstract thought, and sometimes/often do think in this way, doesn't make the OP's post less valid for (many) Ni-doms.


But see that's my very point, this isn't only valid for Ni-doms. I know plenty of other who would attest to absolutely thinking this way who aren't. It would be valid for them as well. It's valid for me, it's valid for my ISFJ fiance and I find it hard to equate it with Ni on those grounds. Now, I disagree with you about everyone using all eight functions in some fashion, but getting into that debate would probably take this thread further off-track than I seem to have taken it already lol.


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

Its hard to describe Ni itself; but the result IRL is often how speak abraxas. Time, event, symbolism, ect. When an guy speak often like that , you spotted an Ni dom. 
doubting or things like that is another things, a simply human things. All isnt related to mbti and cog function.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

no_id said:


> Its hard to describe Ni itself; but the result IRL is often how speak abraxas. Time, event, symbolism, ect. When an guy speak often like that , you spotted an Ni dom.
> doubting or things like that is another things, a simply human things. All isnt related to mbti and cog function.


 So you say that Ni is connected to that ''thinking pattern'' if i've got it right. Ok , if so, that makes sense. Thanks a lot


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

Ni is about time, how event lead to another, metamorphosis of things, how the future could likely be. The use of symbolism come from their mental imagery hardly explainable.


A big difference is that Ne see phenomen as unalterable but can be mixed with some other phenomen in order to get a new better phenomen. 
Mix this theory with this theory, lead to a better theory. All theory are true, just late take better things of each and mix it. Ne see an connection beetween different area of knowledge. Ne is about potential, potential of idea, brainstorm, suddenly get excited by multiple idea.

Ni see the phenomen as alterable, naturally understand his place into flow of time and how he will inevitably lead to another future phenomen, but dont mix phenomen into new one.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

no_id said:


> Ni is about time, how event lead to another, metamorphosis of things, how the future could likely be. The use of symbolism come from their mental imagery hardly explainable.
> 
> 
> A big difference is that Ne see phenomen as unalterable but can be mixed with some other phenomen in order to get a new better phenomen.
> Ni see the phenomen as alterable, naturally inderstand his place into flow of time and how he will inevitably lead to another future phenomen, but dont mix phenomen into new one.


Yes , the thing that Ne is about mix and possibilities makes me doubt that i use it.I can relate more with symbolism and the perception af a process in which a phenomen leads to another.But it is difficult to me to distinguish between what is a matter of culture and what not.For example someone on this thread talked about Moksha ( i guess that it is an Ni thing , but what i mean is that we are influenced in our thought by a lot of things, they could be not our thought) .
And this kind of thought remind me about some philosophers , so , that was the reason of my question.


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

the vast problem is a phenomen lead to another is Te too 
And Ji or Pi function think always the future.
Ni is specialist about predicting things thru imagination, Fi specialist on feel emotion before they happen (feeling emotion about scenario which Fi user invent, in order to choose the best way to do things accordly to good and bad of Fi), ect

Serioulsy is somewhat hard to understand, when you dont face IRL example of each function its somewhat hard to type yourself especially if you have a bad tendency to indentify with many things.
Here youre more one an Ne analyse as if you try to construct your view, not on an Ni rush.
dont think about how you think : its unconscious stuff. Think about how you act and how other perceive you and how you percieve you. Fixating too much on small stuff always lead to typing disaster.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

no_id said:


> the vast problem is a phenomen lead to another is Te too
> Serioulsy is somewhat hard to understand, when you dont face IRL example of each function its somewhat hard to type yourself especially if you have a bad tendency to indentify with many things.
> Here youre more one an Ne analyse as if you try to construct your view, not on an Ni rush.
> dont think about how you think : its unconscious stuff.


It seems (to me) that my style is more convergent rather than divergent , to summerize it .And often i think about something and than i will costruct or decostruct it. And i 'm really decostructive in my thought(that seem tipical of Ni).But you're right! it is so much difficult to understand how i think ahaha. I didn't imagine that could be that difficult to understand myself.


> And Ji or Pi function think always the future.
> Ni is specialist about predicting things thru imagination, Fi specialist on feel emotion before they happen (feeling emotion about scenario which Fi user invent, in order to choose the best way to do things accordly to good and bad of Fi), ect


 Yes,i've thought to this too.You're right.



> Think about how you act and how other perceive you and how you percieve you. Fixating too much on small stuff always lead to typing disaster.


mmh ok , i find difficutl this too XD
We are OT, sorry!if you want to tell me something about this you can do it with pm.I don't want to continue the OT.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Of late, I have been trying to hone my critical thinking skills without driving myself into a corner. Ni-dom people can easily be led to believe the things their minds invent before even having a reason (Te) to do so. It's so easy to have an epiphany or an insight and become too attached to it. Ni easily feeds upon itself, especially when encouraged by Fi.

The thing most people so often miss when they think about something is to take time aside to try and challenge your own ideas. Argue with yourself, before you argue with someone else, and that way your argument will be much stronger before you even start to debate a subject. Plus, it prevents you from committing completely to anything in particular. I'm not saying one should abandon all personal values or preferences. Everyone has a paradigm. Just don't ever let yourself be totally convinced of anything. Remain a little skeptic, just a little, of everything - most of all, yourself.


----------



## Hastings (Jan 8, 2011)

no_id said:


> Its hard to describe Ni itself; but the result IRL is often how speak abraxas. Time, event, symbolism, ect. When an guy speak often like that , you spotted an Ni dom.
> doubting or things like that is another things, a simply human things. All isnt related to mbti and cog function.


I don't mean to sound rude, but I think you would have expressed yourself differently if you were Ni dom yourself. The concept here isn't that Ni doms are alone in thinking in metaphysical terms, but that to many Ni doms that kind of thinking is fundamental as to how we form our ideas. We reject given concepts and redefine them in order to create something new.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

x.x I read the rabbit hole post by OP and I don't get it.

*This is what is happening to me:* I scored INFP on the MBTI test, then came to the forums and saw how INFPs were. It didn't feel right so I went with ENFp because I could see myself as an ENFP as well. Forums were gr8 but I have AvPD and am shy, don't like to be center of attention, so I shifted from ENFP to INFJ (also because INFJ is unique lol) and went with that for a while...till I just didn't get what Ni was and saw that my Fe is kinda shitty. There were other things that didn't feel right I'm more logical and don't really do the Fe thing with people. So I turned towards ENFj lol, why....I have no idea, but quickly dropped that one. Then I thought I was more of an NT maybe, but as soon as i got onto the forums I realized none of that really fit me -.-.

I became frustrated with the entire system and thought that I'm a general NF type and too odd to be fully typed or something, which eventually led to me thinking that the theory itself must be flawed or invalid...but at the same time it works for people so it has to be valid. Something is off and I don't get it, I can't decide, right now not even on the functions. i see myself as too many things at the same time and can't trust my own judgment. Even if i decide i'll get bored of one type and decide I'm another :S grrrr.

Behavior like this has been plaguing me for a long time. I start with something then abandone it for something else without finishing and on and on and on. I can't decide. I just can't. I'm confused because nothing seems to fit well or I get bored of it or the system is broken or something, but it's not just the system because this type of behaviour extends to other parts of my life like choosing a career. I get into something and abandon it because it didn't feel right then move on to something new. It has gotten so bad that I can't trust myself.

:\ what is this? Is it Ni?


----------



## noaydi (Feb 18, 2011)

no, this is typically Fi Ne. 
Youre INFP. INFj into socionic. 
Its incredible how Fi dom user are unable to see that they use Fi more than a sort of magical intuition. Myerr brigg itself seem to fail to understand.

Youre 6 (want certainty about yourself, its now clear), Fi user (perhaps IEE Fi , mean ENFP - Fi subtype) and probably Ne (search self concept, ect).

Seeing how you use youre Ne (searching info in order to get certainty about yourself) , you probably INFP. 
The more you continue to ask who you are, how you fit into profile, want to be typed a way , the more it suggest INFP.
If you dont want to be INFP, so stop searching, read the profile you want to be and imitate it.

PS : ive the same problem than u, I can read into you hahahaHAHAHAHAhahahaha


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

no_id said:


> no, this is typically Fi Ne.
> Youre INFP. INFj into socionic.
> Its incredible how Fi dom user are unable to see that they use Fi more than a sort of magical intuition. Myerr brigg itself seem to fail to understand.
> 
> ...


So it is a Fi-Ne combo, not Ni.

This does not extend only to me. I do this with world events , other people, everything basically. It's like explore the options and decide what feels real. I have read the descriptions, but those are stereotypes of the most extreme kind of type behavior. 

From everything I read and all the tests I have done (which are very many)...I score almost dead center 51% -50% E-I and moderately on N , F and P. From 25% to 38%. XNFP fits me really well, but I can relate a lot to all NF descriptions.

Not sure about type 6. From the videos and descriptions, me and them are similar but different people. The only thing i identify with in type 6 is my social anxiety and no I don't get panic atacks lol.


----------



## Kestrel (Jun 22, 2011)

Thank you. This was very insightful for me, as a Ti-Ne user. I understand now.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

I love this thread. I find the title very interesting as I have often equated my thinking as falling down the rabbit hole. And have often felt like at some point in time ... I took the red pill 

*consider this post my bookmark, to read later*

I like!


----------



## Konigsberg (May 10, 2012)

I agree with this explanation of Ni. It actually reminds me of the writing style a friend of mine (an INXJ) used to have. Even your new avatar is an image he used for skype. Hmm.

It could all be nicely resumed to "Nothing is true."

I miss my Ni dump moments, I've left them aside for quite a time already.


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

I use Assassin's Creed mantras too, you're not fooling me!


----------



## StaceofBass (Jul 1, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Whatever reality implies about itself is only a suggestion.

You show someone a cloud of dots which is obviously supposed to suggest a face, with Ne, you'll notice the face right away, but probably seven other shapes as well and feel clever about that.

You show that same cloud of dots to a Ni user, and they'll also notice the face right away, and maybe a few others, probably not as many as Ne, but that's because Ni is more interested in the whole situation. _Of course_ the cloud of dots resembles a face, and seven other shapes as well - and _whatever else as well_ - because it's never a matter of what one can correctly interpret out of a situation with Ni. All that matters is what I _want_ to interpret out of a situation.

*Anything means anything.*

Meaning is not derived from the properties of objects or facts about the world. For Ni, meaning is a choice, and the choice is always personal, and even if I say, "the cloud looks like a face and these other shapes as well," it is never because _the cloud of dots_ resembled a face or anything in particular, rather...

..._*I am the cloud of dots, and I choose to be the face, and all the other shapes that I want to be.*_


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

This thread is interesting.  Hmm am I considered as a Ni by being INFJ (I'm not familiar with these definitions)? There are times I've found myself wondering about realities, how everything we know/perceive is a matter of perception, depending on my body's 5 senses and how our bodies are wired, and then how the reality might actually be completely something else... And then sometimes finding myself picturing a matrix of alternate realities and time and so on... And so on...

So this is Ni's thing to think of this kind of things?? To think in very abstract ways? And possibilities?

I actually find some ideas in this thread very abstract, I can understand it in some way but then can't be sure if I'm truly getting the ideas or what is truly intended to transmit. I used to be quite abstract some years ago when I tried to communicate my inner thoughts to someone else, without realizing how abstract it actually was.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@AriesLilith,

It's not specific to Ni, but Ni-doms in general tend to think along such lines more than others. It fits Ni very well, but it also fits Ti very well.

INFJs use Ni as a dominant function, Fe as an auxiliary, and Ti as a tertiary. Their inferior function is Se.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

This thread has become my dumping ground for all my intuitions about being a Ni-dom.

Being a Ni-dom is like spending most of your time distracted by the archetypal images in your head, which you are constantly shaping into various forms, and in doing so, gaining an insight into a hypothetical situation. With extroverted judgment, you start to use this gift to play around with facts by liberating them from their immediate context and applying them in a symbolic way to try and manifest or represent the archetypal images generated by your subconscious, but the emphasis - if you are a Ni-dom - is still on the _playing around with the facts_ versus applying them.

It takes maturity to get to the point where to start to differentiate your extroverted judgment enough that it no longer drains or bothers you to engage the world on its own terms. You start to actively participate and feel like part of life, instead of being defensive all the time or passive aggressive and just "playing along" so to speak. Instead of using Ni to deconstruct everything and thus fall into nihilism, you go beyond the nihilism to achieve a state of total freedom in which you can imagine yourself to be anything you want and then visualize the means to manifest it. But this takes a real personal effort that not all Ni-doms show, and so many, if not most that I've personally seen here and elsewhere, tend to never get that far, and instead they get stuck halfway there, somewhere in the, "okay, I need to take this seriously - but I'd rather not have too," phase of avoiding obligation and shifting blame onto others or being overly critical of others while rationalizing away the flaws in oneself.

When a Ni-dom decides they are ready, they can begin to imagine their own existence within the "language" of their auxiliary extroverted judgment. With Te, they focus on trying to conceptualize new facts out of old ones by pulling them out of their immediate objective context and abstracting them out with introverted intuition to see what they are really made of. This "abstraction" process is done automatically by the subconscious, and so the results "appear" to intuitive perception the same way objects appear to the physical senses. When you look at a "door", you recognize a door. It is the same with intuition. With Ni-dominant however, you spend so much time intoxicated by this kind of perception that you begin to recognize the _universal transparency of facts, and the objective absence of any kind of metaphysical certitude about anything._ This ultimate kind of extreme skepticism is what being a Ni-dom is all about, and when you leverage that kind of perception against facts, the so-called "facts" take on a completely different meaning and purpose.

Facts are no longer about being objectively wrong or right, but about what objectively "works" and what doesn't. With Ni-Te, "truth" is just a convention assigned to proper reasoning, and "facts" don't need to describe objective forms (inferior Se), instead, facts can describe abstract _functions_. In this sense, everything is understood via its objective application, the real results that it produces, and how it produces them. For instance, when I think of a hammer, I'm not really thinking of a real object that one can physically perceive. Instead, I'm thinking of what it is that a hammer _does - the intuitive archetype of the hammer_. And in that sense, what actually constitutes a hammer in reality, that is, whatever is _in fact_ a "hammer," is just _whatever__ can do what a hammer does._

To put a spin on this without losing momentum, now try to imagine that same kind of mentality with Fe. Form is a matter of function, but now instead of impersonal _things_ we're talking about emotions, so Ni is caught up in the act of perceiving the abstract practical essence of cultural values and people's feelings. "What is anger _for_?" This is the kind of very practical, yet intuitive and abstract kind of question that I find myself asking all the time, for example. But this can be applied in very immediate and concrete ways. For instance, I am in a situation where I am making an ethical judgment about what's going on. Someone got upset, and I'm trying to decide if I think they were right to get upset in case I ought to take their side. On the one hand, I immediately I outwardly know what most people would consider the "right" answer based on my experience with extroverted feeling judgment, and I might just take the easy route and not think too much about it and side with that.

Values takes the place of facts, so just as one can go on a crusade researching new facts in one sense, one can do the same thing with values - and this is what I am trying to describe myself doing here. Yet, because I am Ni-dominant, there is the sense that, whatever the value happens to be - however it is that most people would emotionally react to something - isn't just a matter of circumstance and facts about biology - it's about what people _really_ want_._ Whatever that is doesn't necessarily have to make sense or be logical, but for me it must be _acknowledged._ For example, when I'm reading someone's post, more than whatever they are actually saying, I'm reading past the words to see what it is that they really want, to give a context to why they are saying them. Then, I'm deciding what I think about their approach to self-expression. Is it ethical? Would I do the same? Most of the time I am contemplating this and trying to decide what this insight means in terms of a purpose for my own life.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Bugs said:


> Do Ni-doms find it easy to calm their minds and meditate ( get a clear head)?


I meditate all the time without even realizing I'm meditating. Thinking is not my dominant mental process. It's exceptionally easy for Ni-doms to meditate because we're not really dominant thinkers, and intuition is a subconscious process, so if I just relax and let my mind do it's thing and zone out, I'm not really thinking about anything. There are no thoughts in my head at all, just "background noise" coming from my intuition, which is always dumping images of things, symbols and geometry, flashes of future conversations I haven't had yet, that sort of thing. As long as I don't try to control it, it's very much a zen-like experience.

Dario Nardi has done scientific research into the neurological basis for the functions and discusses this. If you look up his Google conference on youtube where he gives a short seminar on his findings, he talks about how Ni-doms enter a "zen-like" state occasionally, and it is a unique phenomenon that helps to identify the type. He describes the EEG patterns as the entire brain synchronizing, every single region operating as a single whole for a few moments.

In fact, I find it worth contrasting against the traditional concepts of zen-like "mindfulness" meditation for a second here. Ordinarily, in such an exercise, you would focus on an internal body sensation (Si) such as breathing, in order to keep yourself distracted from thinking. Perhaps this reflects the high percentage rate of Si-doms and types with Si in their functional stack. In my experience, it is no different with Ni - the same thing can be achieved. I think the essence of the exercise, really, is just tuning into your subjective perception well enough to ignore thoughts and feelings and "simply exist in the moment."

It's important to remember that intuitions are not exactly like ideas until they are _apperceived_ through thinking. In their raw state, they are unintelligible datum, in the case of sensation the mere fact of something's existence, _that_ it exists, but no definition of _what_ that thing actually is, and in the case of intuition, the mere fact of something's possibility, _that_ it could be, but no definition of _what_ it could be. This is a point of digression where I think I have to correct much of the standardized literature on intuition available, because you will often see the material state that intuition "synthesizes ideas" and so forth, but an easy mistake to make is to assume that it _produces_ them. It does not inherently do this. It takes a judgment function to actually recognize what intuition produces _as_ a meaningful idea, and label it as such.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> I meditate all the time without even realizing I'm meditating. Thinking is not my dominant mental process. It's exceptionally easy for Ni-doms to meditate because we're not really dominant thinkers, and intuition is a subconscious process, so if I just relax and let my mind do it's thing and zone out, I'm not really thinking about anything. There are no thoughts in my head at all, just "background noise" coming from my intuition, which is always dumping images of things, symbols and geometry, flashes of future conversations I haven't had yet, that sort of thing. As long as I don't try to control it, it's very much a zen-like experience.
> 
> Dario Nardi has done scientific research into the neurological basis for the functions and discusses this. If you look up his Google conference on youtube where he gives a short seminar on his findings, he talks about how Ni-doms enter a "zen-like" state occasionally, and it is a unique phenomenon that helps to identify the type. He describes the EEG patterns as the entire brain synchronizing, every single region operating as a single whole for a few moments.
> 
> ...


Interestingly, a common issue with beginning meditators (to my knowledge) is that they feel that they get worse, or become hyper-sensitized to their external surroundings -- or hyper-vigilant in general. And they are told (by the one guiding them through it or whoever) that this is a short-term issue. It seems to overlap with Ni though (need to get away from excessive external stimuli.)


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Interestingly, a common issue with beginning meditators (to my knowledge) is that they feel that they get worse, or become hyper-sensitized to their external surroundings -- or hyper-vigilant in general. And they are told (by the one guiding them through it or whoever) that this is a short-term issue. It seems to overlap with Ni though (need to get away from excessive external stimuli.)


I think perhaps it could be a mood as well.

I often find that when I get caught up in indulging my inferior function as a means to unwind and let loose, I'm not at all able to just switch back to being calm and detached like I normally am. I have to get it out of my system first, and sometimes that can take awhile because I have to binge for a bit.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> Dario Nardi has done scientific research into the neurological basis for the functions and discusses this. If you look up his Google conference on youtube where he gives a short seminar on his findings, he talks about how Ni-doms enter a "zen-like" state occasionally, and it is a unique phenomenon that helps to identify the type. He describes the EEG patterns as the entire brain synchronizing, every single region operating as a single whole for a few moments.


In his book he described Ni as achieving flow (zen) from being asked a single question or even tackling problems they've no experience with. That's extremely noteworthy because entering a flow state typically requires the prerequisite of 10,000 hours or more of deliberate practice. For example, flow is what happens when Da Vinci begins painting or when Ronaldo steps onto the field. Granted you can hit a flow state before that length of practice, but those are like the little league kids that hit ten home runs in one game and then go back to being trash for the rest of the season. Loosely speaking flow states are associated with some form of mastery.

The most immediate implication is that "Ni types are masters of everything," but there is a nuance that Nardi really should have covered in depth. Flow does't boost your abilities so much as it blocks off everything that holds you back. So to enter a flow state simply means that every fiber of the self is being used at its maximum potential, or that every unnecessary hindrance is being temporarily stifled. The quality of your flow state is entirely dependent upon the length and quality of your practice sessions which determine your abilities in a given context. Hence, a 12 year old in a flow state will not be able to beat a Lebron James with a broken arm on his worst day. The association between Ni and zen/flow shouldn't really inflate the ego but I think that is what happens when people read his experiment results.

The main thing I got from Nardi's results was that the Ni-types learn at an extremely fast rate and probably progress at a much faster rate than others, due to their brains entering flow states with ease. 

That would also mean that they perform at levels far above where they really are, like in the case of tackling things they've no experience with or being told to make predictions (and that does make sense because Ni is inextricably tied to the collective unconscious which is something of a cheat sheet for life if you really think about it.) 

Learning or trying to master a craft while in a flow state is ideal because there are natural psychological and physical resisters that blockade the learning process by default. A "zen" or "flow" state would greatly lessen those, and I do think that's why INJs are described as doing their best thinking "without thinking." I have my best ideas and grasp extremely complex concepts most often while "zoned out." I also play the piano and when my I get distracted by my intuition during the process (playing but while indulging my imagery) I catch myself playing amazingly for a good 10 seconds and the moment I notice that, it's like something breaks and I go back down to that previous level.

I totally rambled but that's because I read Nardi long ago and only recently began studying neuroscience and it all just suddenly came together at once. 



ninjahitsawall said:


> Interestingly, a common issue with beginning meditators (to my knowledge) is that they feel that they get worse, or become hyper-sensitized to their external surroundings -- or hyper-vigilant in general. And they are told (by the one guiding them through it or whoever) that this is a short-term issue. It seems to overlap with Ni though (need to get away from excessive external stimuli.)


Every Ni-dom I've met was like this. I cannot stand to be interrupted and I cannot focus properly unless I'm in complete silence (or chosen noise in the form of certain music that fits the way I'm thinking at that given time.) I saw an ISTP once say that INTJs were easily over stimulated and that's definitely true for me.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Octavian said:


> In his book he described Ni as achieving flow (zen) from being asked a single question or even tackling problems they've no experience with. That's extremely noteworthy because entering a flow state typically requires the prerequisite of 10,000 hours or more of deliberate practice. For example, flow is what happens when Da Vinci begins painting or when Ronaldo steps onto the field. Granted you can hit a flow state before that length of practice, but those are like the little league kids that hit ten home runs in one game and then go back to being trash for the rest of the season. Loosely speaking flow states are associated with some form of mastery.
> 
> The most immediate implication is that "Ni types are masters of everything," but there is a nuance that Nardi really should have covered in depth. Flow does't boost your abilities so much as it blocks off everything that holds you back. So to enter a flow state simply means that every fiber of the self is being used at its maximum potential, or that every unnecessary hindrance is being temporarily stifled. The quality of your flow state is entirely dependent upon the length and quality of your practice sessions which determine your abilities in a given context. Hence, a 12 year old in a flow state will not be able to beat a Lebron James with a broken arm on his worst day. The association between Ni and zen/flow shouldn't really inflate the ego but I think that is what happens when people read his experiment results.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the "without thinking" thing rings true for me. In fact I posted in a thread the other day about NT's being insecure about their intelligence (don't know if you know of that thread or not), and I said I'm more insecure in a situation I know a lot about but have screwed up at some point in the past, than I am in a completely new situation (no knowledge/experience) that I feel like I "get." I often seem to learn better jumping right into something I know nothing about, but have an overall sense of understanding. It is strange even to me, and I'm still trying to rationalize it like "it's not woo-woo stuff, just how my brain works." 

Re: overstimulation, yeah. Earlier today I was thinking about how I appreciate feeling what others call "boredom" -- but I think of it more as free space (in a more abstract sense.) I am much more wary of running into too much stimuli.

Neuroscience is pretty amazing (and possibly what I want to do with my life.)


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Yeah, the "without thinking" thing rings true for me. In fact I posted in a thread the other day about NT's being insecure about their intelligence (don't know if you know of that thread or not), and I said I'm more insecure in a situation I know a lot about but have screwed up at some point in the past, than I am in a completely new situation (no knowledge/experience) that I feel like I "get." I often seem to learn better jumping right into something I know nothing about, but have an overall sense of understanding. It is strange even to me, and I'm still trying to rationalize it like "it's not woo-woo stuff, just how my brain works."


I think I have a similar experience.

My initial reaction to information is kind of hit-or-miss. If it "hits", then I quickly think I get the gist of it and I could even start explaining it to someone else right away. However, then if I start to read into it more, and study it more formally, my mind wants to reach all the way to infinity, striving for the "perfect conception" of the material, and suddenly I can't even speak on the topic without stuttering, backtracking, and wanting to find more and more concrete facts and references to back up my claims (which would otherwise seem incredulous and/or missing the point).

Then again, if it "misses" (which is really rare, since I tend to grasp almost anything new really easily) I usually don't even bother and just skip it entirely.


----------



## chanteuse (May 30, 2014)

I was intrigued by the topic but half way thru my eyes glazed over and started dozing. ;-)

It's interesting how INTJs and INFJs are similar and dissimilar; both highly intuitive yet how they perceive/analyze Ni is different. I, for the life of me, can not begin to rationalize or put it into poetry form like OP does.

It's a rabbit hole alright but it's also a magician's hat. I can pull rabbits and doves out of the empty hat. To me, that's my Ni. I don't know how but I just know that I will pull something out of thin air simply because I see that something from nothing.


----------



## Glassland (Apr 19, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Yeah, the "without thinking" thing rings true for me. In fact I posted in a thread the other day about NT's being insecure about their intelligence (don't know if you know of that thread or not), and I said I'm more insecure in a situation I know a lot about but have screwed up at some point in the past, than I am in a completely new situation (no knowledge/experience) that I feel like I "get." I often seem to learn better jumping right into something I know nothing about, but have an overall sense of understanding. It is strange even to me, and I'm still trying to rationalize it like "it's not woo-woo stuff, just how my brain works."
> 
> Re: overstimulation, yeah. Earlier today I was thinking about how I appreciate feeling what others call "boredom" -- but I think of it more as free space (in a more abstract sense.) I am much more wary of running into too much stimuli.
> 
> Neuroscience is pretty amazing (and possibly what I want to do with my life.)


Interesting. Since I have learned to use this 'overview understanding' I can immediately start to learn something, which is what I had problems with before in my youth. I create a kind of abstract, bizarre, subjective, nebulous imagery in my head on how the concept 'looks like'. Basically a mental chart, an overview on the topic, as you said. Then it's very easy for me to actually go and learn the details and how I use it. But I always need this mental overview, I need clarity in what something is, how it is, why it is, what it is used for.


----------



## envolucris (Oct 7, 2014)

Echoing others: Beautiful thread.

I'm sure this has alao been said before, but the Ni encountered in my (involuntarily meditative) introspection has rendered me indelibly, well, _Ni_hilistic.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Glassland said:


> Interesting. Since I have learned to use this 'overview understanding' I can immediately start to learn something, which is what I had problems with before in my youth. I create a kind of abstract, bizarre, subjective, nebulous imagery in my head on how the concept 'looks like'. Basically a mental chart, an overview on the topic, as you said. Then it's very easy for me to actually go and learn the details and how I use it. But I always need this mental overview, I need clarity in what something is, how it is, why it is, what it is used for.


Yeah. I have been in many situations against my will where I couldn't have that mental image or grasp the "point" of something, and it feels like I'm losing my mind. So sometimes I feel kinda guilty that I need this image to function (like an addiction), but the fact remains I do need it to function.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

The op is a great way to show both Ne and Ti. The example is an intangible topic that is then expanded and extraverted outward by relating things that aren't related on the surface. That is Ne. And comments like, "systems are arbitrary" is pretty much what Ti means. Also, discounting the objective truth and objective knowledge, points to Ti, as it is anti-Te.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> The op is a great way to show both Ne and Ti. The example is an intangible topic that is then expanded and extraverted outward by relating things that aren't related on the surface. That is Ne. And comments like, "systems are arbitrary" is pretty much what Ti means. Also, discounting the objective truth and objective knowledge, points to Ti, as it is anti-Te.


I don't think you really understand the functions very well.

First of all, if you had read Gifts Differing by Myers Briggs, you'd note that she points out both forms of intuition generate and seek out new possibilities. Both forms of intuition are expansive and relate things that aren't related on the surface.

Second, Ne doesn't really work the way you seem to think it does. It deals with things that are tangible and empirically "there" in the sense of being actually real, even if they haven't happened yet. Ni is the abstract version of this, conjuring up subjective and abstract impressions of things, not tangible ones. It aims at constructing a personal vision that suits the individual; it doesn't have objectivity as it's aim.

Te is the function that brings objectivity into the picture for INTJs, but it doesn't apply to their intuitive perception and understanding of the world. Te only applies as the "organizing" function when it comes to a choice about what ought to be done with the subjective understanding/vision.

Read Jung. He almost verbatim states what I just said when he discusses how the introverted intuitive must at some point make the moral choice about what purpose his vision serves.

Third, discounting objective truth and knowledge is also something you'll see a lot of INFPs, or INFJs, or any other introvert doing for that matter. It is simply the nature of introversion to take causal power away from objective reality. You're confusing that behavior as being something exclusive to Ti, when in fact, it is just the nature of an introverted attitude presented through any of the functions.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> I don't think you really understand the functions very well.


I could say the same thing about you. I'm not sure why people think that is a valid argument. Your opinion about my understanding is irrelevant to my actual understanding. 



> First of all, if you had read Gifts Differing by Myers Briggs, you'd note that she points out both forms of intuition generate and seek out new possibilities. Both forms of intuition are expansive and relate things that aren't related on the surface.


If Myers Briggs had done an exceptional job of taking Jung's theory and finding repeatable evidence to support it, well then that would be appropriate. Unfortunately, they just developed stereotypes that could fit anyone with any functions, and have confused the majority of people who use MBTI. That statement doesn't show any connection to Jung's idea of introverted intuition. 



> Second, Ne doesn't really work the way you seem to think it does. It deals with things that are tangible and empirically "there" in the sense of being actually real, even if they haven't happened yet. Ni is the abstract version of this, conjuring up subjective and abstract impressions of things, not tangible ones. It aims at constructing a personal vision that suits the individual; it doesn't have objectivity as it's aim.


I don't agree. Intuition, in general, deals with intangible aspects of objects. Se is the function that works with real, tangible, and empirically-backed objects. Uhh, something that hasn't happened yet isn't real. (However, a lead Ne user would make such a case.)

Your op took one subject and extraverted the crap out of it, and you even went back and showed how all that extraverting related to the original subject. A subjective introverted intuition would take the subject of assumption, give every internal impression of that one subject, and stick to it. So like saying, assumption means..., this is what happens when you assume, to assume is to..., why assume?, etc. It wouldn't expand out to show how assumption leads to truth to ... to... etc. That is extraverting intuition. Intuition doesn't have two different meanings, it is just used differently when it is extraverted and introverted. 



> Te is the function that brings objectivity into the picture for INTJs, but it doesn't apply to their intuitive perception and understanding of the world. Te only applies as the "organizing" function when it comes to a choice about what ought to be done with the subjective understanding/vision.


When Ni and Te work together it is about intangible subjective impression and how they fit into an objective truth. Then that objective truth is applied to their lives. 



> Read Jung.


I have, extensively.


> He almost verbatim states what I just said when he discusses how the introverted intuitive must at some point make the moral choice about what purpose his vision serves.


What does the moral choice have to do with this discussion? Everyone has to make a moral choice at some point. Though, Jung speaks of Ni as mystical and he incorporates the moral choice. That is how those two are related with Ni. Many like to place morality solely in the F functions, but Jung incorporated them into the intuition functions as well, which makes sense since intuition deals with the intangible. 



> Third, discounting objective truth and knowledge is also something you'll see a lot of INFPs, or INFJs, or any other introvert doing for that matter. It is simply the nature of introversion to take causal power away from objective reality. You're confusing that behavior as being something exclusive to Ti, when in fact, it is just the nature of an introverted attitude presented through any of the functions.


INTJs never discount the objective truth, as that is the main characteristic of our first judging function. Read Jung. He talks about how Te is all about objective truth. Though, I do think that is one place Jung (and Socionics) went too far in the descriptions. We all have P and J functions that we need to use in our daily lives. Jung dealt with abnormal subjects, and they seemed to have focused more on one or the other, but I don't think the average person uses the functions like that. So to Jung introverts have little ability to process extraverted functions, but in reality that only applies to their main function. A Pi won't use Pe very well. 

What you showed was a major subjective view of systems, structures, and organization. All of that is exactly what Ti does. To try and force it into Ni doesn't change how Ti works. And what I've noticed is that people are willing to describe ISTJ with the Te aspects, but not INTJ. And if they do it's really Ti and not Te. It's an odd occurrence here. I think it's because Ni is less obvious because we remain in the realm of intangible, but it's a mistake to ignore it. With your op, it's clearly extraveting intuition and introverting thinking.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> I could say the same thing about you. I'm not sure why people think that is a valid argument. Your opinion about my understanding is irrelevant to my actual understanding.


I'm not sure why you view it as an argument. It was a statement. My opinion of your understanding provides a context for my response to it. 



Kathy Kane said:


> If Myers Briggs had done an exceptional job of taking Jung's theory and finding repeatable evidence to support it, well then that would be appropriate. Unfortunately, they just developed stereotypes that could fit anyone with any functions, and have confused the majority of people who use MBTI. That statement doesn't show any connection to Jung's idea of introverted intuition.


I don't see how someone who has actually read and understood Jung's description of introverted intuition would make the claim that my description "doesn't show any connection to Jung's idea of introverted intuition."



Kathy Kane said:


> I don't agree. Intuition, in general, deals with intangible aspects of objects. Se is the function that works with real, tangible, and empirically-backed objects. Uhh, something that hasn't happened yet isn't real. (However, a lead Ne user would make such a case.)


Things that haven't happened yet is too vague and doesn't capture the distinction between extraverted and introverted forms of intuition. When intuition is extraverted, the intangible aspects of objects applies to the objects themselves, hence why Ne is so caught up in fads and everything "really happening" in the external world. When intuition is introverted, it applies to the inner object, the images of things that subjectively exist to the individual. This applies to the contents of the imagination, hence the subjectivity of my OP rather than it being directed at the external world.



Kathy Kane said:


> Your op took one subject and extraverted the crap out of it, and you even went back and showed how all that extraverting related to the original subject. A subjective introverted intuition would take the subject of assumption, give every internal impression of that one subject, and stick to it. So like saying, assumption means..., this is what happens when you assume, to assume is to..., why assume?, etc. It wouldn't expand out to show how assumption leads to truth to ... to... etc. That is extraverting intuition. Intuition doesn't have two different meanings, it is just used differently when it is extraverted and introverted.


But it wasn't expansive at all, it showed a process happening in a linear sequence that was circular. Ne would have changed the subject and bounced all over the place, each idea having no immediate relationship to the other, and furthermore with an eye towards actual things that exist in physical external space.



Kathy Kane said:


> When Ni and Te work together it is about intangible subjective impression and how they fit into an objective truth. Then that objective truth is applied to their lives.


Which is what my OP showed.



Kathy Kane said:


> I have, extensively. What does the moral choice have to do with this discussion? Everyone has to make a moral choice at some point. Though, Jung speaks of Ni as mystical and he incorporates the moral choice. That is how those two are related with Ni. Many like to place morality solely in the F functions, but Jung incorporated them into the intuition functions as well, which makes sense since intuition deals with the intangible.


Jung was alluding to the auxiliary function. A moral choice can be a logical choice or an ethical one. In reality these two functions exist along a continuum, with a gray zone between. The distinction is made for the sake of creating a typology, but the dichotomy is only for that purpose, not to imply that these two things aren't fundamentally rational. I used the word "moral" to reflect Jung's thinking given in Psychological Types, to explain to you how Te/Fe is applied to dominant intuition so that you would understand how I applied it to my OP.



Kathy Kane said:


> INTJs never discount the objective truth, as that is the main characteristic of our first judging function. Read Jung. He talks about how Te is all about objective truth. Though, I do think that is one place Jung (and Socionics) went too far in the descriptions. We all have P and J functions that we need to use in our daily lives. Jung dealt with abnormal subjects, and they seemed to have focused more on one or the other, but I don't think the average person uses the functions like that. So to Jung introverts have little ability to process extraverted functions, but in reality that only applies to their main function. A Pi won't use Pe very well.


Objective truth exists within a framework for truth which is objectivity itself. INTJs, via their lead function of introverted intuition, readily grasp the essence of truth as something subjectively perceived. This is because they are introverts and also perceivers. All introverts share this unanimous point of view for the most part, and in my experience I have only encountered a few exceptions to this. Again, this is not something specific to Ti. You are confusing Ti with introversion in general. You are also mistaking my subjectivist philosophy for Ti, rather than recognizing it as a depth of perception into the structure of reality that I arrived at intuitively.



Kathy Kane said:


> What you showed was a major subjective view of systems, structures, and organization. All of that is exactly what Ti does. To try and force it into Ni doesn't change how Ti works. And what I've noticed is that people are willing to describe ISTJ with the Te aspects, but not INTJ. And if they do it's really Ti and not Te. It's an odd occurrence here. I think it's because Ni is less obvious because we remain in the realm of intangible, but it's a mistake to ignore it. With your op, it's clearly extraveting intuition and introverting thinking.


Frankly, you take an inappropriately narrow view of personality types, and you are not allowing for enough intratype variation. Falsely assuming that anyone who takes a subjective point of view would necessitate a preference for Ti is just a gross distortion of Jungian personality typology. Once again, a subjective view of _anything_ is the general preference of _introversion_. Whenever any function takes an introverted orientation, it becomes a preference for subjectivity in that area.

Nobody is trying to force anything into Ti except you. You are inappropriately restricting the activity of Ni. According to your logic, Te would negate the subjectivist and impressionistic perception of Ni entirely. What you've done is to over-emphasize the value of Te logic to a INTJ. Not all INTJs apply Te with the emphasis you do. There are variations within the type itself, with some INTJs valuing Te less or more. An INTJ who values Te less is prone to act upon and trust a subjective perception without much strategy or planning or adherence to objective considerations, mostly due to the fact that they live inside their own heads all the time and don't really care to manifest the images they perceive internally.

...

Which brings us to the real heart of the matter. The question on my mind, as my intuition reads into it this entire time is, where exactly are you coming from? Why all this? Everything you are saying is obviously false or misrepresented, and those who understand the material well have already figured it out and contributed to the thread already. So the real question is, what's _actually_ happening right now?

While it is subtle, you convey more than you realize with the way that you write and communicate. The presentation of your post, even from the start, conveyed disrespect. You viewed my OP as "sloppy" and you've let your perfectionist tendencies get the better of you. That arises from your inferior function, Se, expressing itself through your auxiliary function, Te. Your need for my OP (Se) to fit into your subjective perception of the truth as it appears to you (Ni), gets torn apart by your judgment (Te) and then you attempt to show that it is false, not because it is or isn't false, but because it's "not good enough" for you. It simply doesn't fit into your intuition of the subject matter.

You've read one thing into it, and no doubt I imagine strived to build up a case for your point of view, and likely you've amassed lots of references and citations to the work of others in order to construct what you consider to be an ironclad line of reasoning for your claims. If you've ever taken a critical thinking class, you might know that's a very poor way to go about being objective. That kind of behavior is famous, it is called "confirmation bias" - something all NTs tend to have the worst time with. I say they have the worst time of it only because, of all the types, NTs are the most likely to look _beyond_ the facts to try and see what isn't really there.

The reality here is that you're not even really trying to discredit the validity of my OP on the basis of some benevolent act on your part. You're projecting your own ignorance onto it because you fail to see what is being shown. And you fail to see it because you don't want to see it. You'd rather have reality (Se) fit your subjective impressions (Ni), and so you're going to take action and "correct" the situation (Te) because you feel you must (Fi).

At this point I have nothing further to add. I've already made it perfectly clear where your biases are, and now it's up to you to either take my advice seriously or continue to embrace your hubris. Personally, I don't know you that well so I couldn't care less what you do, and thus my patience wanes. I leave it up to the audience to decide what they think.

You have the floor.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

The OP literally reads like Lenore Thomson's Introverted Intuiton.



> Material reality is just so much raw experience. It has to be controlled with a stable mental framework [...]
> 
> Introverted Intuition [...] tells us that changing our frame of mind can change the world [...] This is how Introverted Intuition works. The material facts remain the same, but we organize them in a new conceptual pattern that changes their meaning and gives us new options for behavior [...]
> 
> ...


Nothing about the OP was Ne, for to Ne, the intuitive object is static. There is a correct way to perceive and interpret it. Ni holds that the nature of the object itself, is *determined* by how it is interpreted. Where Ne ties things into a larger context, Ni liberates it. All hallmarks displayed in the OP.

Supposedly it is Ti as well. Has anyone here ever read Kant? Descartes? Hume? Ti asserts that all things contain an underlying logical structure that reflects "the ultimate truth." The OP holds that truth is relative to perception and nothing more than a frame of reference. Ti sets up axioms and proceeds forth through argument adhering to strict principles. The OP sets an axiom and proceeds to _immediately violate it_ by shifting perspectives.

There's no Ne or Ti, the OP is probably the best example of Ni-Te that I've seen on these forums.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> I'm not sure why you view it as an argument. It was a statement. My opinion of your understanding provides a context for my response to it.


Of course it was an argument. You intended to diminish my opinion by making such a statement. Even though it was a logical fallacy, it was still an attempt to present an argument against what I said. 



> I don't see how someone who has actually read and understood Jung's description of introverted intuition would make the claim that my description "doesn't show any connection to Jung's idea of introverted intuition."


You said, "First of all, if you had read Gifts Differing by Myers Briggs, you'd note that she points out both forms of intuition generate and seek out new possibilities. Both forms of intuition are expansive and relate things that aren't related on the surface." I then responded based on your comment that it was Myers Briggs' understanding, but now you are saying it was your own opinion? Did you get that from Myers Briggs or was it your own understanding? 

Regardless of which one you meant that statement isn't from Jung. He had the understanding that we contain all the introverted information we need within ourselves. So we wouldn't expand outward, but we would dig deeper inward. To him, introverts open up unconscious perception or judging that leads to more self actualization. It's the opposite of extraverted functions, which take the objective aspects and move them outward. 



> Things that haven't happened yet is too vague and doesn't capture the distinction between extraverted and introverted forms of intuition. When intuition is extraverted, the intangible aspects of objects applies to the objects themselves, hence why Ne is so caught up in fads and everything "really happening" in the external world. When intuition is introverted, it applies to the inner object, the images of things that subjectively exist to the individual. This applies to the contents of the imagination, hence the subjectivity of my OP rather than it being directed at the external world.


The P functions don't deal with the social aspects of the world. That is part of the F judging functions. P is obtaining information and identifying it. Being wrapped up in fads and current events is only an aspect of p in that it observes it, but it's the F functions that apply it to reasoning for action. 

The subjectivity of your op was Ti, as it was about rejecting the extraverted aspects of T. The part of your op that was expansive was the Ne, which took intangible aspects of the "object" and moved it away from the object. 



> But it wasn't expansive at all, it showed a process happening in a linear sequence that was circular. Ne would have changed the subject and bounced all over the place, each idea having no immediate relationship to the other, and furthermore with an eye towards actual things that exist in physical external space.


It can't be both linear and circular. Why would Ne "bounce all over the place?" That makes it sound as though Ne has no purpose, which is false. Ne is identifying external objects by way of moving the intangible aspects of the object outward. Everything is connected and related to the Ne user. For me, I don't jump to systems when I think of assumptions, but your extraverted explanation of assumptions lead to systems. Maybe that is what has you confused. You expect Ne to be random, when it really isn't. 



> Which is what my OP showed.


No. You went on a Ti tangent of rejecting objective truth and even went on and on about your subjective choices, which is a reasoning, which is part of the T functions. You introverted the T and completely rejected the extraverted aspect.



> Jung was alluding to the auxiliary function.


No. He was strongly into spirituality, and he applied that to the N functions, especially Ni. Having Ni as a top function connects one to their inner soul and spirit. In that way Jung related mysticism and morals to the N function. Those are part of the archetypes and images of the collective unconscious. 



> A moral choice can be a logical choice or an ethical one. In reality these two functions exist along a continuum, with a gray zone between. The distinction is made for the sake of creating a typology, but the dichotomy is only for that purpose, not to imply that these two things aren't fundamentally rational. I used the word "moral" to reflect Jung's thinking given in Psychological Types, to explain to you how Te/Fe is applied to dominant intuition so that you would understand how I applied it to my OP.


Well that didn't really help demonstrate how it was applied to the op. 



> Objective truth exists within a framework for truth which is objectivity itself. INTJs, via their lead function of introverted intuition, readily grasp the essence of truth as something subjectively perceived.


At the beginning of your op you said, "nothing is true." So even if I did agree with you, it contradicts how you presented the topic in the op. 

However, I don't agree with that. We need reasoning to be sure of truth. Ni is confident in their internal subjective impressions, but without reasoning to back it up, it's just personal observation. This is why we need an extraverted J to make decisions, form conclusions, and ideas. We need both P and J for that. 



> This is because they are introverts and also perceivers. All introverts share this unanimous point of view for the most part, and in my experience I have only encountered a few exceptions to this. Again, this is not something specific to Ti. You are confusing Ti with introversion in general. You are also mistaking my subjectivist philosophy for Ti, rather than recognizing it as a depth of perception into the structure of reality that I arrived at intuitively.


I'm not the one confusing Ni with Ti, that is you (and several other people on this site.) You are taking the subjective reasoning you experience and are then applying it to Ni. Ni isn't about choices, systems, organizations, etc. That is T. You expressed all of that in your op in a subjective way through your extraverted function. 



> Frankly, you take an inappropriately narrow view of personality types, and you are not allowing for enough intratype variation.


 Except that I have stated, several times now, that you included both Ne and Ti into your op. So I'm not sure how you can even make that case. What I haven't done is apply Ti reasoning to Ni, and that is the real problem here. 



> Falsely assuming that anyone who takes a subjective point of view would necessitate a preference for Ti is just a gross distortion of Jungian personality typology. Once again, a subjective view of _anything_ is the general preference of _introversion_. Whenever any function takes an introverted orientation, it becomes a preference for subjectivity in that area.


You are making Ti into all introverted functions. I get that Ti is close to you, since you use it so well, but it isn't every single introverted function. It is its own unique function. Ni and Ti do not fulfill the same duties. Ni perceives the intangible aspects of an object and reorients it subjectively and Ti takes the preceived information, applies subjective judgement, and fits it into their internal framework of systems and organization. You are trying to force T judging into N perceiving, and it just doesn't work. 



> Nobody is trying to force anything into Ti except you.


Your op incorporates systems in a subjective way, that has nothing to do with Ni. I can see the difference between the two here. 



> You are inappropriately restricting the activity of Ni. According to your logic, Te would negate the subjectivist and impressionistic perception of Ni entirely. What you've done is to over-emphasize the value of Te logic to a INTJ. Not all INTJs apply Te with the emphasis you do. There are variations within the type itself, with some INTJs valuing Te less or more. An INTJ who values Te less is prone to act upon and trust a subjective perception without much strategy or planning or adherence to objective considerations, mostly due to the fact that they live inside their own heads all the time and don't really care to manifest the images they perceive internally.


Even if someone hasn't developed Te, but uses it as one of their top functions, they would still look for objective truth over subjective truth. The function doesn't change just because someone uses it poorly. They still have to judge, even if Pi is their go to function, and when they do it's through objective truths. 



> Which brings us to the real heart of the matter. The question on my mind, as my intuition reads into it this entire time is, where exactly are you coming from? Why all this?


Are you being facetious? All I did was read your op and leave a comment. YOU chose to engage me and attack my knowledge of the subject. You could have ignored my post. Just because I don't agree that your op is Ni and Te, doesn't mean there was some conspiracy going on. You decided to take it personally, and apply false claims to what I said and how I said it. That's your prerogative. 



> You've read one thing into it, and no doubt I imagine strived to build up a case for your point of view, and likely you've amassed lots of references and citations to the work of others in order to construct what you consider to be an ironclad line of reasoning for your claims. If you've ever taken a critical thinking class, you might know that's a very poor way to go about being objective. That kind of behavior is famous, it is called "confirmation bias" - something all NTs tend to have the worst time with. I say they have the worst time of it only because, of all the types, NTs are the most likely to look beyond the facts to try and see what isn't really there.
> 
> The reality here is that you're not even really trying to discredit the validity of my OP on the basis of some benevolent act on your part. You're projecting your own ignorance onto it because you fail to see what is being shown. And you fail to see it because you don't want to see it. You'd rather have reality (Se) fit your subjective impressions (Ni), and so you're going to take action and "correct" the situation (Te) because you feel you must (Fi).
> 
> ...


All I got from all that is how much you extravert N.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@Kathy Kane

On a totally unrelated note... What do you mean when you say that P or Ne identify things?




> The P functions don't deal with the social aspects of the world. That is part of the F judging functions. *P is obtaining information and identifying it.* Being wrapped up in fads and current events is only an aspect of p in that it observes it, but it's the F functions that apply it to reasoning for action.





> It can't be both linear and circular. Why would Ne "bounce all over the place?" That makes it sound as though Ne has no purpose, which is false. *Ne is identifying external objects* by way of moving the intangible aspects of the object outward. Everything is connected and related to the Ne user. For me, I don't jump to systems when I think of assumptions, but your extraverted explanation of assumptions lead to systems. Maybe that is what has you confused. You expect Ne to be random, when it really isn't.


It sounds like thinking to me given:



Jung said:


> Sensation (i.e. sense perception) tells us that something exists; *thinking tells you what it is;* feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not; and intuition tells you whence it comes and where it is going.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> @Kathy Kane
> 
> On a totally unrelated note... What do you mean when you say that P or Ne identify things?
> 
> It sounds like thinking to me given:


That statement from Jung and his examples seem to be opposed each other. For instance he says:


> Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades.


In order to identify vertigo the man saw an image of a tottering man. It's that subjective image, fascination, and exploration that allows the intuitive to grasp and identify vertigo. 

I suppose a case can be made that Jung meant for the P function to gather all the necessary observations in order for the J function to identify the object. And I can see how that may be. I could say the P functions provide input for identification by the J functions, but I'm not sure which way Jung intended for his examples to come across. And I tend to see the J functions as taking the P identified objects, adding reasoning and judgement to the identification, and then place them into systems.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> That statement from Jung and his examples seem to be opposed each other. For instance he says:
> 
> In order to identify vertigo the man saw an image of a tottering man. It's that subjective image, fascination, and exploration that allows the intuitive to grasp and identify vertigo.
> 
> *I suppose a case can be made that Jung meant for the P function to gather all the necessary observations in order for the J function to identify the object.* And I can see how that may be. I could say the P functions provide input for identification by the J functions, but I'm not sure which way Jung intended for his examples to come across. And I tend to see the J functions as taking the P identified objects, adding reasoning and judgement to the identification, and then place them into systems.


In my opinion the bolded line above is what Jung intended. Wouldn't identification of an image, in this context, in itself be a judgment?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Every thread I go into I see the same people misinterpreting Ne. For goodness sake it's literally an easy function to understand if you all would stop aplying your subjective assumptions onto it. 

Ne is an extraverted function that is focused on the *objective* possibilities of an object by way of perceiving the objects potential and it's relationship to other objects or things. Everything Ne does is *not* random and no where close to being random because the possibilities it perceives is directly based on the potential of the object. There is no bouncing all over the place because the place has never changed, the place started at the object, and it's possibilities are directly related to the object. The object never dissappears, it's potential is just the main focus while everyone else is focused on something different, hence why outsiders think it's random because seeing the potential of an object isn't their focus like it is for the Ne user.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Housespider said:


> You have to elaborate. If they are practically identical, why are they perceived as different?


I may be able to be of some assistance here.

Carl Jung exposes two forms of thinking, which he calls "active" and "passive". He described the difference between active thinking and passive thinking in the following way:



> Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking an occurrence. In the former case, I submit the representation to a deliberate act of judgment; in the latter case, conceptual connections establish themselves, and judgments are formed which may; even contradict my aim—they may lack all harmony with my conscious objective, hence also, for me, any feeling of direction, although by an act of active apperception I may subsequently come to a recognition of their directedness


 - *Source*


He goes on to categorize the two forms of thinking into "directed" intellect (rational) and undirected intuitive thinking (irrational):



> The faculty of directed thinking, I term _intellect_: the faculty of passive, or undirected, thinking, I term _intellectual intuition_. Furthermore, I describe directed thinking or intellect as the _rational (q.v.)_ function, since it arranges the representations under concepts in accordance with the presuppositions of my conscious rational norm. Undirected thinking, or intellectual intuition, on the contrary is, in my view, an _irrational (q.v.)_ function, since it criticizes and arranges the representations according to norms that are unconscious to me and consequently not appreciated as reasonable. In certain cases, however, I may recognize subsequently that the intuitive act of judgment also corresponds with reason, although it has come about in a way that appears to me irrational.


 - *Source*


Jung also exposes two forms of "apperception" that he mentioned:



> Is a psychic process by which a new content is articulated to similar already-existing contents in such a way as to be understood, apprehended, or clear [9]. We discriminate _active_ from _passive_ apperception; the former is a process by which the subject of himself, from his own motives, consciously and attentively apprehends a new content and assimilates it to another content standing in readiness; the latter is a process in which a new content from without (through the senses) or from within (from the unconscious) presses through into consciousness and, to a certain extent, compels attention and apprehension upon itself.


 - *Source*


Jung is also clear about his definition of extraversion:



> Means an outward-turning of the libido (q.v.). With this concept I denote a manifest relatedness of subject to object in the sense of a positive movement of subjective interest towards the object. Everyone in the state of extraversion thinks, feels, and acts in relation to the object, and moreover in a direct and clearly observable fashion, so that no doubt can exist about his positive dependence upon the object. In a sense, therefore, extraversion is an outgoing transference of interest from the subject to the object. If it is an intellectual extraversion, the subject thinks himself into the object; if a feeling extraversion, then the subject feels himself into the object. The state of extraversion means a strong, if not exclusive, determination by the object.


 - *Source*


And succinctly defines introversion for us as well:



> Means a turning inwards of the libido (q.v.), whereby a negative relation of subject to object is expressed. Interest does not move towards the object, but recedes towards the subject. Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the chief factor of motivation while the object at most receives only a secondary value.


 - *Source*


From these definitions we can begin to piece together one possible interpretation of Ni and Ne, insofar as their relationship to thinking stands.

Comparing each as a component of thinking, and as both irrational functions, and attitudes of intuition, both Ne and Ni would fall into what Jung called "intellectual intuition". After this, we should contrast the difference Jung describes between the attitude of extraversion and the attitude of introversion.

The picture we begin to see is that "intellectual intuition" is a kind of unconscious thinking process that is not under the control of my conscious will; intellectual intuition is irrational and undirected, perhaps Jung means that they are forms of perception. I am inclined to think this is the case, for Jung does state that "by an act of active apperception I may come to a recognition of their directedness". I believe he means active recognition of the purpose of my intuition in the sense of like, taking the time to analyze and synthesize it clearly, because he describes "active apperception" as, "the subject of himself, from his own motives, consciously and attentively apprehends a new content and assimilates it to another content standing in readiness".

We also see that the real difference between intellectual intuition with an extraverted bias versus intellectual intuition with an introverted bias is merely the attitude of the person's consciousness.

In the case of the extravert, I see several possibilities: one is that the bias is represented in the initial undirected thinking itself, before it is actively apperceived. In that case, the extravert will sit down and engage in active apperception of his own intellectual intuition, but he will be working with a lopsided intuition - one that manifests a bias for extraverted information. So he is only going to have a very asymmetrical set of information to work with from the start.

A second possibility is the reverse: his intuition may be unbiased, but when he active apperceives it, his extraversion may show itself there and he will only selective attend to the information presented by his intellectual intuition which invests libido into the objective world.

A third possibility is simply a mixture of the two. The pessimist in me is inclined to believe this is probably actually the case.

All we have to do then is reverse this principal for the introvert, and we see the same behavior, only in contrast to the extravert who is biased toward the object and objectivity; the introvert is instead biased toward the subjectivity of things and the subject itself, rather than the objects of which the subject is derived. (By the way, here I am trying to weasel in my own language a bit: to be clear, I am trying to be helpful in clarifying that when I talk about "object" and "subject" I usually mean it in the sense of there being _objects_ that we call "apples"... and then there is the _subject_ OF apples. In the one case, we are having a discussion about a real instance of a thing, and in the latter case, we are talking about the generalization/abstraction of a thing.)


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_Abraxas_

*Hybrid functions
*
Personally, I disagree. How is it that Ne and Ni are examples of a hybrid of thinking and intuition? Intuition is categorically distinct from thinking. Are you sure that is what he meant by "intellectual intuition?" Another example of a hybrid function is emotion, which is a cross between sensation and feeling. Ne and Ni, at least when dominant, should be differentiated from thinking. Hybrid functions are undifferentiated.


*Counterpoint to undirected thinking*



> Undirected thinking, or intellectual intuition, on the contrary is, in my view, an irrational (q.v.) function, since it criticizes and arranges the representations according to norms that are unconscious to me and consequently not appreciated as reasonable.


Here he is describing unconscious judgment, not perception via the unconsious. Representations would be the perceptual images, but the unconscious act of criticizing and arranging them would be unconscious judgment.


*Counterpoint to passive apperception*



> We discriminate active from passive apperception; ... the latter is a process in which *a new content *from without (through the senses) or *from within (from the unconscious)* presses through into consciousness and, to a certain extent, compels attention and apprehension upon itself.


Here I would argue that the above bolded is the part that is intuition. Also, in my opinion, an image that comes from within to compel the attention of the will is an example of being "in the grip" of the inferior.


*Ne & Ni as acts of will*

Another argument is that the dominant and auxiliary functions are conscious in that they are at the disposal of the will, which includes intuition, as where undirected thinking is not. Here are the statements where I would draw these conclusions from:

From Jung's Intuition definition in PT:



> abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, necessitates a certain element of direction, an act of will or a purpose


or from the current revised copy:



> abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, needs a certain element of direction, an act of the will, or an aim.


Also from the Ne type description:



> Just as sensation, when given the priority, is not a mere reactive process of no further importance for the object, but is almost an action which seizes and shapes the object, so it is with intuition, *which is by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but an active, creative process that builds into the object just as much as it takes out.*


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> *Hybrid functions
> *
> Personally, I disagree. How is it that Ne and Ni are examples of a hybrid of thinking and intuition? Intuition is categorically distinct from thinking. Are you sure that is what he meant by "intellectual intuition?" Another example of a hybrid function is emotion, which is a cross between sensation and feeling. Ne and Ni, at least when dominant, should be differentiated from thinking. Hybrid functions are undifferentiated.



Sorry, I should've explained that better.

I don't think there are hybrid functions, and I didn't mean that I thought Jung was saying there were. By "intellectual intuition" I assume Jung meant intuition when it is coupled with thinking (operating in tandem with it, e.g., as an auxiliary or dominant function).




PaladinX said:


> *Counterpoint to undirected thinking*
> 
> 
> 
> Here he is describing unconscious judgment, not perception via the unconsious. Representations would be the perceptual images, but the unconscious act of criticizing and arranging them would be unconscious judgment.


But Jung also states that functions of judgment are rational and functions of perception are irrational. Here he states that undirected thinking is an irrational function. If what you say is true, then that would seem to imply a contradiction, unless you recall where he states that a judging function can be an irrational function? I don't recall reading that anywhere.




PaladinX said:


> *Counterpoint to passive apperception*
> 
> 
> 
> Here I would argue that the above bolded is the part that is intuition. Also, in my opinion, an image that comes from within to compel the attention of the will is an example of being "in the grip" of the inferior.


Again, you might be more familiar with the material than me; I don't recall where he gives an exposition on being in the grip of the inferior equating to an image coming from within that compels attention.




PaladinX said:


> *Ne & Ni as acts of will*
> 
> Another argument is that the dominant and auxiliary functions are conscious in that they are at the disposal of the will, which includes intuition, as where undirected thinking is not.


I agree with you here. Perhaps undirected thinking would be an example of intuition being employed to the purposes of thinking but simultaneously being undifferentiated? It seems as if this would be the case, since Jung also does say that undifferentiated functions are unconscious.

Maybe intellectual intuition would serve best as an example of intuition as an inferior function then? Or could it be any undifferentiated function?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> Sorry, I should've explained that better.
> 
> I don't think there are hybrid functions, and I didn't mean that I thought Jung was saying there were. By "intellectual intuition" I assume Jung meant intuition when it is coupled with thinking (operating in tandem with it, e.g., as an auxiliary or dominant function).


Fair enough. I personally don't think that was his intended meaning in this context. But I can definitely see where that can get confusing given that, under the principal and auxiliary section of PT, he talked about such hybrid terms as the practical intellect and artistic intuition.



> But Jung also states that functions of judgment are rational and functions of perception are irrational. Here he states that undirected thinking is an irrational function. If what you say is true, then that would seem to imply a contradiction, unless you recall where he states that a judging function can be an irrational function? I don't recall reading that anywhere.


To be clear, he said that _directed _judgment is rational.



Jung said:


> The faculty of directed thinking, I term intellect: the faculty of passive, or undirected, thinking, I term intellectual intuition. Furthermore, I describe *directed thinking or intellect as the rational (q.v.) function,* since it arranges the representations under concepts in accordance with the presuppositions of my conscious rational norm. Undirected thinking, or intellectual intuition, on the contrary is, in my view, an irrational (q.v.) function, since it criticizes and arranges the representations according to norms that are unconscious to me and consequently not appreciated as reasonable. In certain cases, however, I may recognize subsequently that the intuitive act of judgment also corresponds with reason, although it has come about in a way that appears to me irrational.





Jung said:


> The nature of a feeling-valuation may be compared with intellectual apperception as an apperception of value. An active and a passive feeling-apperception can be distinguished. The passive feeling-act is characterized by the fact that a content excites or attracts the feeling; it compels a feeling-participation on the part of the subject The active feeling-act, on the contrary, confers value from the subject—it is a deliberate evaluation of contents in accordance with feeling and not in accordance with intellectual intention. Hence active feeling is a directed function, an act of will, as for instance loving as opposed to being in love. This latter state would be undirected, passive feeling, as, indeed, the ordinary colloquial term suggests, since it describes the former as activity and the latter as a condition. Undirected feeling is feeling-intuition. *Thus, in the stricter sense, only the active, directed feeling should be termed rational:* the passive is definitely irrational, since it establishes values without voluntary participation, occasionally even against the subject's intention.





> Again, you might be more familiar with the material than me; I don't recall where he gives an exposition on being in the grip of the inferior equating to an image coming from within that compels attention.


Fair point. But, as stated, the claim is based on my opinion/understanding. 

It is in part based on ideas from psychologist and MBTI professional/author, Naomi Quenk. I think she might have been the person to coin the term "in the grip." She has two books on the subject: Was that Really Me? and In the Grip

Also based on an extrapolation from Jung's definition of Extraversion:



Jung said:


> One should speak of an active extraversion when deliberately willed, and of a passive extraversion when the object compels it, i.e. attracts the interest of the subject of its own accord, even against the tatter's intention.


And in part by the definition of the word 'compel.'

The basic principle that I am drawing from all of this is that something that compels you is not a willful act. I am inferring that if something therefore compels you from within, it is coming from your unconscious and thus the inferior.




> I agree with you here. Perhaps undirected thinking would be an example of intuition being employed to the purposes of thinking but simultaneously being undifferentiated? It seems as if this would be the case, since Jung also does say that undifferentiated functions are unconscious.
> 
> Maybe intellectual intuition would serve best as an example of intuition as an inferior function then? Or could it be any undifferentiated function?


Good questions! I'm not sure at this point. I'll have to think on it some more.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Fair enough. I personally don't think that was his intended meaning in this context. But I can definitely see where that can get confusing given that, under the principal and auxiliary section of PT, he talked about such hybrid terms as the practical intellect and artistic intuition.


Ah, yes. That's specifically what I was recalling. Where he gives these different "hybrid" examples of each function, "concrete thinking", "practical intellect", etc. I assumed this was like that, with intellectual intuition being intuition as it becomes involved with thinking.

However, now in light of what you've said I've come to believe he might be describing something else. Maybe in this case, what he means by intellectual intuition is merely some kind of undifferentiated intuition as it is employed for the purpose of thinking. It could even be inferior. I think in this case he simply means it is unconscious and therefore undifferentiated, so that could be anything I suppose?





PaladinX said:


> To be clear, he said that _directed _judgment is rational.


Ahhh, that's very fascinating. I didn't realize that he made that distinction. That definitely gives me some pause to go back to the drawing board for a bit. I'll have to think on it a bit and see what new connections my mind comes up with.

I'm seeing a couple of ways to interpret the part that you bolded. Either what Jung means is that there are irrational functions of judgment (when judgment lacks direction), or what he means is that whenever judgment lacks direction it is therefore under the influence of my unconscious and so - at least partially, if not completely - undifferentiated. I'm currently biased toward the second interpretation.




PaladinX said:


> It is in part based on ideas from psychologist and MBTI professional/author, Naomi Quenk. I think she might have been the person to coin the term "in the grip." She has two books on the subject: Was that Really Me? and In the Grip


Ahhh, yeah. I need to read Quenk. I haven't read her work yet.




PaladinX said:


> The basic principle that I am drawing from all of this is that something that compels you is not a willful act. I am inferring that if something therefore compels you from within, it is coming from your unconscious and thus the inferior.


I agree. I also think that is what Jung is saying.

However, I also recall that Jung himself tends to use the term "inferior" to refer to two categories of things that have since come to be labeled as distinct: the inferior function (in relation to the dominant), and also any undifferentiated functions (which tend to take on the likeness of the inferior function if I'm not mistaken).

I say "have since come to be labeled as distinct" because although Jung somewhat developed his notion of the auxiliary, and this has since been expounded upon by other authors who have interpreted it their own way, the idea of a "tertiary" function has also come about, and I don't believe Jung goes into enough detail about the relationship of the unconscious functions to justify some of the mainstream and widely accepted ideas (such as the order and attitude of each unconscious function) about them.

To that extent, I'm not certain exactly what "inferior" means in every case, because to me Jung is not completely clear on what he means by inferior, although we can at least make a few educated guesses. He does make it clear that there is an inferior function for each possible dominant function, of that much I'm certain, but I'm not sure what he means, for instance, when he talks about the introverted thinker and describes all three other functions as having an "inferior quality and primitive extraverted character":



> The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> Ah, yes. That's specifically what I was recalling. Where he gives these different "hybrid" examples of each function, "concrete thinking", "practical intellect", etc. I assumed this was like that, with intellectual intuition being intuition as it becomes involved with thinking.
> 
> However, now in light of what you've said I've come to believe he might be describing something else. Maybe in this case, what he means by intellectual intuition is merely some kind of undifferentiated intuition as it is employed for the purpose of thinking. It could even be inferior. I think in this case he simply means it is unconscious and therefore undifferentiated, so that could be anything I suppose?


I can't articulate it very well, but it's something along the lines of a thought popping into your head vs deliberate reasoning. One is an occurrence and the other is an act of will.

From Jung's definition of Thinking:



Jung said:


> This I regard as one of the four basic psychological functions (v. Function). Thinking is that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection. It is an apperceptive activity and, as such, must be differentiated into active and passive thought-activity. *Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking an occurrence.* In the former case, I submit the representation to a deliberate act of judgment; in the latter case, conceptual connections establish themselves, and judgments are formed which may; even contradict my aim—they may lack all harmony with my conscious objective, hence also, for me, any feeling of direction, although by an act of active apperception I may subsequently come to a recognition of their directedness. Active thinking would correspond, therefore, with my idea of directed thinking[70]. Passive thinking was inadequately characterized in my previous work as "phantasying" [71]. To-day I would term it intuitive thinking.


I just noticed something rather interesting. According to the last line in that quote he calls "passive thinking" "intuitive thinking." But further in the same definition which we've both quoted, he calls "undirected thinking" "intellectual intuition." I cross-referenced it with the current edition of PT and it's the same. Are they interchangeable or distinct terms? Hmmm.....!

EDIT: It seems interchangeable according to this line:



Jung said:


> *The faculty of directed thinking, I term intellect: the faculty of passive, or undirected, thinking, I term intellectual intuition.* Furthermore, I describe directed thinking or intellect as the rational (q.v.) function, since it arranges the representations under concepts in accordance with the presuppositions of my conscious rational norm. Undirected thinking, or intellectual intuition, on the contrary is, in my view, an irrational (q.v.) function, since it criticizes and arranges the representations according to norms that are unconscious to me and consequently not appreciated as reasonable. In certain cases, however, I may recognize subsequently that the intuitive act of judgment also corresponds with reason, although it has come about in a way that appears to me irrational.





> Ahhh, that's very fascinating. I didn't realize that he made that distinction. That definitely gives me some pause to go back to the drawing board for a bit. I'll have to think on it a bit and see what new connections my mind comes up with.
> 
> I'm seeing a couple of ways to interpret the part that you bolded. Either what Jung means is that there are irrational functions of judgment (when judgment lacks direction), or what he means is that whenever judgment lacks direction it is therefore under the influence of my unconscious and so - at least partially, if not completely - undifferentiated. I'm currently biased toward the second interpretation.


I think my response to your question about being "in the grip" is possibly an example of intellectual intuition. I don't actually know how I formed that opinion, so I could not provide specific reasoning. Rather, I threw out a few possibilities based on potentially related information that I could think of after the fact. But I'm not 100% certain on that either.





> I agree. I also think that is what Jung is saying.
> 
> However, I also recall that Jung himself tends to use the term "inferior" to refer to two categories of things that have since come to be labeled as distinct: the inferior function (in relation to the dominant), and also any undifferentiated functions (which tend to take on the likeness of the inferior function if I'm not mistaken).
> 
> ...


You're right. I can certainly see how the term can seem ambiguous. I would pay attention to the nuances where "inferior" is being used as an adjective versus as a term/label/noun. In Jung's definition of inferior function he refers to a specific function "This term is used to denote *the function *that remains in arrear in the process of differentiation." You can also see it more clearly if you follow the link in my next point (first spoiler).

According to Jung, the tertiary is actually just another auxiliary function. Check out the first spoiler in this post. The other spoilers show some of the relationships between the functions.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> I think my response to your question about being "in the grip" is possibly an example of intellectual intuition. I don't actually know how I formed that opinion, so I could not provide specific reasoning. Rather, I threw out a few possibilities based on potentially related information that I could think of after the fact. But I'm not 100% certain on that either.


That's very interesting. That's how I would say my intuition works most of the time. If that's what you mean by being "in the grip" of it, then I would say that is how I experience my intuition whenever I do. I have never thought of my intuition as being something "directed" except in those instances where I actually am consciously choosing the topic for it, but even then I usually would equate this to some form of thinking since I assume giving any kind of direction to my intuition is an act of judgment (because I would have had to made the decision what to direct it at).

However, in light of what you've shown me, now I'm inclined to believe I'm wrong - that Jung really wasn't trying to make it seem as though acts of will and decisions about directedness were necessarily related to any function.

When I experience my intuition, it usually begins in a quiet moment alone where I'm not disturbed by anything external. It is kind of a daydream, I don't usually choose the topic, it is like having a TV always running in the background and you're not always paying attention to what's on. You're always aware the TV is on, because of the changes in light contrast and shadows it creates and occasionally you hear the sound of laughter or a loud commercial, you know what I mean - background ambience - but you're not focused on it.

Then I will direct my focus onto it and see what's showing. Usually it's something related to something bothering me, or something I've been thinking about (like cognitive functions, the nuances of my personality type, an argument I may have had with someone, a situation I'm going to need to confront but I'm procrastinating; insecurities about getting a job once I'm close to completing my bachelor degree program cause me to watch myself living in poverty or I'm standing in one of those fancy office buildings with the modern decor and the in-house food courts, almost like they have in a shopping mall, and I'm eating my lunch while watching people walk around. The walls are bright because everything is white and glass and reflects the sun around.)

I can just sit and watch all that stuff happening in my mind all day and daydream endlessly about it. I have to peel myself away from it or direct it toward something specific. Usually I'll pick a topic I find interesting, like personality types, and then I'm having a dialogue with some imaginary person in my mind where I am trying to teach them about the functions and they maybe have questions I can't answer, or they represent people here on these forums that I've had debates with before and now they're in my mind debating me and I'm trying to confront them. Usually the debate turns personal, because the scenes that play out are extraordinarily accurate to reality (how it would actually go down I mean) and I'm saying things to them I would never actually say because I don't want to go down the road that I'm watching in my head.

But again, what you say about not being able to provide a specific reasoning - that's how I feel about 90% of my conclusions because they're based on just what I described above, a kind of imaginary walkthrough where I'm explaining something to myself in my own mind and coming up with a good metaphor or analogy as my mind sees some kind of correlation, and then I think, "I should use that analogy to explain the functions."

That's how I came up with my map metaphor, for instance.

I was thinking about that thread about cognitive functions not being objective, and then I literally saw a man standing on a mountain surveying a lush green valley (like some South Asian valley in China or something) and he was holding a compass on top of a map. And then, as I saw the map through the man's eyes, it began changing and turned into a kind of cartoony looking map, like something you'd get from a tour guide at Disneyland. Then the entire scene changed, and it was a three-dimensional star map with alien runes overlaying it hovering in the air above a holographic projector. And I suddenly got the idea that this is how cognitive functions worked, especially that bit about them being subjectively appealing because different people might find a different sort of map more appealing and out of familiarity it becomes more useful to them than a more scientifically accurate one, because all it really needs to do is get the job done, so to speak.




PaladinX said:


> According to Jung, the tertiary is actually just another auxiliary function. Check out the first spoiler in this post. The other spoilers show some of the relationships between the functions.


Unfortunately I can't get that link to work.


----------



## S33K3RZ (Oct 18, 2014)

First, I love the poetic style you write with. 



Abraxas said:


> Everything begins with the following assumption: everything begins with an assumption.


False. Things begin with sensory experiances. It is unknown if they are true or untrue, however it is reasonable and pragmatic to assume that we in some way perceive reality.



Abraxas said:


> Nothing is true.


False. Reality is real by definition. Reality is absolutely true reguardless of our ability to perceive it or if we are delusional. It is also true, and I know for a fact, that I am not omnipresent or onipitant.



Abraxas said:


> Everything is permitted.


False; This would require omnipresense and onipitance.



Abraxas said:


> If an assumption works, then it serves a purpose. Purpose is arbitrary. Ideas are tools - a means to an end.


Agreed. Predictive models of reality are intrinsicly more valuable to me than non-predictive models. Models of reality can be represented symbolicly as ideas.



Abraxas said:


> Truth is totally irrelevant. Truth is simply a decision.


False. My senses indicate that I am affected by reality. If I am delusional about reality I will suffer reguardless of my delusion preventing me from perceiving reality.



Abraxas said:


> Truth is faith and faith is conviction, and so is knowledge. Knowledge is also arbitrary.


False. Faith is Not truth, it is a delusion. Faith is believing in something without sufficent evidence to belive it is true. Truth, as in things in reality are knowable though our perceptions, and therefore they are self evident providing grounds to belive in them. Knowledge is a symbolic recall of our perceptions which is usually accurate to a degree for most people, and also the opposite of faith.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_S33K3RZ_,

I'm sorry I don't follow you. It seems like you're missing the point of this thread.

The purpose of this thread was to provide an example of Ni for discussion.

If you want to engage in a critique of the faulty reasoning that intuition often entails, you ought to tie your observations back to the topic of the thread (Ni) in some way, otherwise I don't understand the purpose of them. All of the observations you made seem valid to me, I'm not arguing with you, but what is their consequence for the subject of introverted intuition?

I don't understand your objective. As it stands, it looks like you just want to discuss philosophy with me, in which case, private message me or start a thread in the philosophy section of the website and link me it on my profile wall or something. I love discussing philosophy and I will gladly entertain a dialogue with you.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

To really do justice to Ni, I would like to give an example of what I would consider a perfect illustration of introversion in general, but more importantly, introversion as an attitude when applied to intuition. This example is drawn from the writing of Joseph Campbell, in his book _The Hero With A Thousand Faces._ I highly recommend any Jung enthusiasts or anyone interested in the kind of themes Ni is all about check out this book (Part II in particular).




> And so, to grasp the full value of the mythological figures that have come down to use, we must understand that they are not only symptoms of the unconscious (as indeed are all human thoughts and acts) but also controlled and intended statements of certain spiritual principals, which have remained as constant throughout the course of human history as the form and nervous structure of the human physique itself. Briefly formulated, the universal doctrine teaches that all the visible structures of the world - all the things and beings - are the effects of a ubiquitous power out of which they rise, which supports and fills them during the period of their manifestation, and back into which they must ultimately dissolve. This is the power known to science as energy, to the Melanesians as mana, to the Sioux Indians as wakonda, to the Hindus as Sakti, and to the Christians as the power of God. Its manifestation in the psyche is terms, by the psychoanalysts, libido. And its manifestation in the cosmos is the structure and flux of the universe itself.
> 
> The apprehension of the source of this undifferentiated yet everywhere particularized substratum of being is rendered frustrate by the very organs through which the apprehension must be accomplished. The forms of sensibility and the categories of human thought, which are themselves manifestations of this power, so confine the mind that it is normally impossible not only to see, but even conceive, beyond the colorful, fluid, infinitely various and bewildering phenomenal spectacle. The function of ritual and myth is to make possible, and then to facilitate, the jump - by analogy. Forms and conceptions that the mind and its senses can comprehend are presented and arranged in such a way as to suggest a truth or openness beyond. And then, the conditions for meditation having been provided, the individual is left alone. Myth is but the penultimate; the ultimate is openness - the void, or being, beyond the categories - into which the mind must plunge alone and be dissolved. Therefore, God and the gods are only convenient means - themselves of the nature of the world of names and forms, though eloquent of, and ultimately conducive to, the ineffable. They are mere symbols to move and awaken the mind, and to call it past themselves.



This really _nails_ Ni. Absolutely nails it.

I've never read anything before in my life on the subject of introverted intuition that resonated with me more. I could list more than a dozen other books I've also read that I own which all reflect this same kind of theme - that of going "beyond" thought and sensation, beyond the symbolism of ideas and language and systems and forms into the unconscious void of transcendent experience, where one finds a kind of inner nexus or origin of everything, both objective and subjective.

Personally I've never had a problem with the so called "mystical Ni" descriptions that Ni generally gets. While I certainly espouse the value of science and pursue it myself as a career (computer science), I will always tend to favor the mystical and the spiritual themes of the world, especially mythology, fantasy, and the art of creative fiction. Writers like Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Robert Anton Wilson, Peter J Carroll, and of course, Jung and Campbell, are among the most inspirational authors I've ever read in my entire life.

To that extent, I find it a bit vindicating that one of the most iconic INTJ celebrities in history - Issac Newton - was obsessed with the mysticism of alchemy and devoted his entire life to the study of alchemy, far far more than he ever did to physics (although his contribution to physics is what made him famous).

This video for example really touches upon the kinds of themes I find central to understanding the mentality and personality of Ni:

*(Alan Moore is the creator of V for Vendetta, The Watchmen, and others.)*


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> Unfortunately I can't get that link to work.


Fixed link in post. Or just click the link below 

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ceptions-tertiary-function-9.html#post8839554


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I had to look around but here I found an old video in which Carl Jung is being interviewed and he briefly talks about intuition, particularly he goes into introverted intuition a bit.


----------



## S33K3RZ (Oct 18, 2014)

@Abraxas

You are correct; I missed the disclaimer that this was intended to be a critique of faulty reasoning. It's all good =)


----------



## Jamie.Ether (Jul 1, 2011)

First of all, I would like to say that I absolutely love this description.
Ni is something I know so well, but it is ever elusive to attempt to explain.
There will never be a perfect description of the function, as I feel that would contradict the meaning of the function.
But THIS is very beautifully constructed. 
I have read it over again and again, taking it in, reveling in this statement.

Secondly, in a way what you wrote now reminds me of a song:
"I'm from Redemption,
and the meaning of redemption is faith,
and the meaning of faith is sin,
and the meaning of sin is forgiveness,
and the meaning of forgiveness is ecstacy,
and the meaning of ecstacy is lust,
and the meaning of lust is creation,
and the meaning of creation is DEATH..
So death to ALL!"
(-...And You Will Know Us By The Trail of Dead)


----------



## jordie123 (Dec 13, 2014)

I do this all the time in my diary. I didn't know I was using Ni when I was doing this I just thought I was writing my thoughts. When I am angry I write a broad accusation and then I go deeper and deeper until I find an "answer" to either why that accusation is true, why it sometimes is true, or maybe why it applies to that person/ situation I am mad at. Or sometimes I just throw my thoughts away because I realize that it's false, but that's rare.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Abraxas said:


> He'll do this thing where he will start branching out while following a train of thought wherever it leads, but then it ends up leading him to say one thing, and then the next day he's saying something contradictory, or he tries to argue for having it both ways at once and just straight-up ignores the dissonance. He's not consistent because, as I observe and try to tell him, he's not really considering the subjective side of his intuition - why he's reading into what's there the way that he does. He doesn't recognize the way in which he's locked his perception into just whatever the world actually is, and limited his predictions to just whatever is derived from fact and objectivity.


This is interesting to me, because it describes my thought process. The only differences is I'm intensely aware of my contradictions. Its as if I can have a flood of thoughts one day that lead to a seemingly coherent conclusion and a few days later I have a flood of thoughts that lead to another seemingly coherent conclusion that is contradictory to my first conclusion. And in the background my Ti is screaming. Trying frantically to find a way to marry both conclusions into something logically consistent. 

Its easier for me to ignore consistency and just follow my intuition to its conclusion, thats my natural state. But I can't allow myself to do that really, theres another side of me, my Ti, that would be constantly nagging at me in the back of my mind forcing me to address the inconsistencies in some way.


----------

