# The Big Picture: Not Ne/Ni?



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

I have made a theory that _all_ percieving functions are big picture thinkers (who wants the small picture?), but go about it in different ways.

Pe seeks to understand/see the *whole* picture, every tiniest bit. But since this is not possible, the Pe mind will develop a sort of uncertainty-how can it truly know, it asks, if it cannot see the whole picture?

Pi takes a different approach. It looks at a few parts of the picture, and makes a general assumption about the picture, obtaining an understanding of the whole. But this means that Pi is limited to a small sample to derive conclusions from and cannot see the full and "true" data, only whatever it has sampled.

Did I just have a breakthrough, or am I just spouting crazy talk?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Your Pi deals more with Si. Ni is much more big picture oriented than Ne (this is relative of course to the subject). The other thing about Pe is that with Se we're talking about what is. It doesn't matter if its the whole picture or part of the picture, only what is right there in the moment. Intuition is where the missing pieces begin to manifest. One of the things that defines Se-doms is their lack of ability to _see_ outside of their own perceptions (and intuitives often don't see what's right in front of them - and again I'm talking about perception relative to the ego, not saying that intuitives have bad vision). 

Ni might appear to only use limited information theoretically, but new information will cause the Ni-type to constantly polish his position, just as new experiences refine the Si-dom. They are steadfast at first but willing to adapt if new information is present (because dominant Ni wants to be _right_ in its conclusions - a dom-Ni type who didn't believe in their intuition would be a really dysfunctional person).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Owfin

I don't totally agree with your conclusion or the part on Pi, but I think you're really onto something with Pe, especially with reference to Ne. This reminded me of my AP Lit teacher, who had this inclination of wanting all of the students' discussion points to relate to one another to "build up to" a higher understanding, sort of a higher philosophical plane so to speak. This seems to be something that only Ne doms could relate to for the most part, as my INTP sister thought this to be "irrational," as she is so quick to normally point out about anything that lacks inherent logic (and of course, she was technically correct, since perception functions are irrational, according to Jung). However, I was able to understand what he was doing, but I personally don't prefer to analyze and interpret literature with this method, since my dominant intuition is subjective and operates in its own nuanced way that doesn't need any particular structure in order to further my understanding when engaging in it. As stereotypically unstructured as Ne is normally considered, this to me was evidence of its externally-based structure, like all of the other extroverted functions, and was eye-opening evidence of to me that the J/P dichotomies can fail down to the two N functions. Ni is really more "P" than Ne, since Ne operates on structures, although very bizarre ones at that.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> the J/P dichotomies can fail down to the two N functions. Ni is really more "P" than Ne, since Ne operates on structures, although very bizarre ones at that.


This is a good point. What Ne interprets doesn't have to make sense, especially ideas, they just have to in some way be related to the external world, even if they're wholly symbolic. 

I think you're right that Ni (and really Si) do not need external frameworks because they form their own subjective axioms. I think this is one reason why Myers chose to emphasize the extraverted functions because there is no way you could quantify introverted perception. (I still have a hard time making heads or tails of Si). The only issue here is that by ignoring the function attitudes people can become miscategorized.

Also when Jung talks about rational vs irrational what he saying is that perception in general cannot be quantified. That unlike judgment which can be externally validated or appealed to, perception in a way is always subjective. (In other words extraverted perception could not appeal to consensus the same way Fe or Te do because everyone has different perceptions). Even two Se-doms will not perceive the same way, though they have the same functional preference. When he calls it irrational he is saying _you can not apply rationale to it_.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@LiquidLight

You are dead right about Ni being more "big picture" oriented than Ne!! Wow, I'm so glad that I'm not alone on this observation! The environment is the limiting factor of Ne in oh so many various ways per individual, since Ne is basically the subconscious projected onto the environment, and is thus (as an independent function), very vulnerable and suggestible to so many external cues that shape the way it presents itself in individuals, thus in my estimation, making it the least universally definable function of them all through mere observation of individual Ne users (in other words, Ne doms tend to consist of the most diverse individuals of this cognitive function orientation, which often results in them being mistyped if you're trying to use other known Ne doms as a typing reference for an undetermined possible Ne dom). In the sense of suggestibility, Se would be the polar opposite - the least suggestible function (Se doms typically operate on the motto "Seeing is believing."). Ne doms seem to be the ones who can believe just about anything without seeing it, although the development of their secondary function can make a huge difference in this manifestation of the dominant. Now how does this (suggestibility) tie into "big picture" limitations relative to Ni doms? Well, if they have an "anything is possible" dominant mindset, I doubt they would normally be focused on finding a frame of reference of epic proportions to filter their understanding of a concept - as long as details build up to their expectations of furthering understanding, but not settling it (inferior Si driving force), their ego is typically satisfied. After all, a "big *picture*" is a frame of reference, which sounds a lot like Ni perspective-shifting (to satisfy their drive to form an "ultimate picture," being inferior Se). To form clear big-pictures, the dominant function would probably have to be as closed off from environmental influence as possible (almost subconscious, as Ni is), I assume, knowing this is very much the case for me as an Ni dom, which could explain why some Ni doms tend to come off as "close-minded" or "unreceptive" to the ideas of others, even though this may not actually be the case. If I'm off on anything here, I'd love further input. ^_^


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

It really does seem like Ne doms consist of the most diverse crowds of single types in my life (ENTPs and ENFPs), where some are very dumb, some are borderline geniuses, some are nerds, some are just very down-to-earth, but humorous, etc. Being the most common of the N types, hands down, this evenly distributed variation of diverse characteristics doesn't surprise me. It seems like most of the people I had trouble typing IRL were Ne doms, since they can be so unstereotypical (contrary to typist MBTI stereotypes, which I'm beginning to find understandable in their case, perhaps due to what I noticed (the less stereotypical ones going under the typology radar?). This could just be a coincidence in my life though, but I'm very curious about this.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

So, is this the way that S vs. N works?

N predicts.

S masters what is already there.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Owfin said:


> So, is this the way that S vs. N works?
> 
> N predicts.
> 
> S masters what is already there.


Basically. But I think its safer to say Intuition implicates like I think you had already said (because N can also go back and intuit that something has happened in the past, not just predict the future).


----------



## Psilo (Apr 29, 2009)

I have come to dislike the term big picture. Every type wants to see the whole picture, it's the picture itself that's different. 

Ps use possibilities from the environment to make a inner "map" that is the big picture of what is or what probably is. 

Js want to see the big picture as a goal to strive towards based on their perspective.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> Ps use possibilities from the environment to make a inner "map" that is the big picture of what is or what probably is


This is still more like Ni/Si because Se doesn't really do this.

With Je, the big picture of what to strive for (what has the most value) is externally dictated and agreed upon.


----------



## Psilo (Apr 29, 2009)

LiquidLight said:


> This is still more like Ni/Si because Se doesn't really do this.
> 
> With Je, the big picture of what to strive for (what has the most value) is externally dictated and agreed upon.


I don't really understand Ni very well. NP users take abstract external information (or the "implied" or "essential" information of the environment) and create Si "maps" which are understood precedents for making decisions. SP users do something analogous which I do not understand quite as well. However, they are still "big picture" in the sense that they look on the environment as a whole picture. An SP would be more inclined to take raw sensory information, and be less trustful of what is implied. 

I also disagree that J types inherently follow group consensus, even SJ types. SJ types use personal precedent to formulate their "big picture" which is to be strived for, or would be the result of, the system they have in mind. An example of an SJ going against consensus would be something along the lines of "The actions I've seen are an abject failure, I understand this to work better." Je judges based on external data, and external effect, but not necessarily consensus.

Edit: Who doesn't love the forest and trees metaphor? I would say that to call only seeing the forest as "big picture" thinking is misleading. A P type would be more inclined to think "Well, of course the forest has trees, but let's talk about the forest!" while a J type would be closer to "Of course there is a forest! I thought that was implied by this large gathering of trees! Now, let's figure out these trees."


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, if they have an "anything is possible" dominant mindset, I doubt they would normally be focused on finding a frame of reference of epic proportions to filter their understanding of a concept - as long as details build up to their expectations of furthering understanding, but not settling it (inferior Si driving force), their ego is typically satisfied. After all, a "big *picture*" is a frame of reference, which sounds a lot like Ni perspective-shifting (to satisfy their drive to form an "ultimate picture," being inferior Se). To form clear big-pictures, the dominant function would probably have to be as closed off from environmental influence as possible (almost subconscious, as Ni is)


Yeah, if by big picture you mean "clear frame of reference" then Ne is not very big picture, lol. I tend to have something different in mind when I think of the big picture though, more of a "broadnening the context"....and thus I suspect the real problem here is that we are each defining big picture according to our own primary perceiving function :tongue:



JungyesMBTIno said:


> It really does seem like Ne doms consist of the most diverse crowds of single types in my life (ENTPs and ENFPs), where some are very dumb, some are borderline geniuses, some are nerds, some are just very down-to-earth, but humorous, etc.


Could you believe that some of us are all of the above, and perhaps even all within 5 minutes? :wink: It's the refusal to stick to any one thing, and like you said, a certain blend of being strongly externally influenced and all that subconscious nonsense. So again if you are looking for a solid sort of big pictureness, Pi definitely has us beat, but I still think Pe has a big pictureness in a strong but very different way.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> It really does seem like Ne doms consist of the most diverse crowds of single types in my life (ENTPs and ENFPs), where some are very dumb, some are borderline geniuses, some are nerds, some are just very down-to-earth, but humorous, etc. Being the most common of the N types, hands down, this evenly distributed variation of diverse characteristics doesn't surprise me. It seems like most of the people I had trouble typing IRL were Ne doms, since they can be so unstereotypical (contrary to typist MBTI stereotypes, which I'm beginning to find understandable in their case, perhaps due to what I noticed (the less stereotypical ones going under the typology radar?). This could just be a coincidence in my life though, but I'm very curious about this.


lol, this is exactly what i thought a few years back and then decided to see if they could be mistyped, but the whole N v.s. S distinction is hard to distinguish since they don't even act the same all the time, or, fit into a few "personality molds". the one's i know, it's like who they're around greatly influences them (not saying that's bad or good, i don't really know)... maybe i could think up some ways to create a test that would give me a more "concrete" answer, instead of having them answer questions about themselves truthfully (actually harder than it sounds).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Yeah, if by big picture you mean "clear frame of reference" then Ne is not very big picture, lol. I tend to have something different in mind when I think of the big picture though, more of a "broadnening the context"....and thus I suspect the real problem here is that we are each defining big picture according to our own primary perceiving function :tongue:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you believe that some of us are all of the above, and perhaps even all within 5 minutes? :wink: It's the refusal to stick to any one thing, and like you said, a certain blend of being strongly externally influenced and all that subconscious nonsense. So again if you are looking for a solid sort of big pictureness, Pi definitely has us beat, but I still think Pe has a big pictureness in a strong but very different way.


Very interesting! The "broader context" you speak of is exactly what I've seen in Ne doms and auxes - a very interesting difference between Ne and Ni, which seems to create new contexts altogether to operate. Hmm...I think I have to believe that some of you are "all of the above" within 5 minutes now that you trapped me with this question, hehe. So, I suppose that you guys are open to even experimenting with playing stupid to expand your own understanding of something, like deliberately ignoring everything you know to be true just to wrap your mind around a new concept or something? XD Wow, that would be a bit freaky to think that some of the dumb ones I know might not even be dumb at all, but quite the contrary (like one day, they might suddenly come across as geniuses out of the blue)...I'm sort of doubting this, but now that you mention it...hmmm...


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@celticstained

I totally agree about the N/S distinction! Of all N types, the Ne doms seem to be the ones that I have most often mistaken for being Ss (either Si or Se) doms or auxes, which often seems to depend on the social crowd they spend the most time with. I think a test would be awesome, or some sort of system like the brilliant system that the INTPs came up with pertaining to all of the different types of INTPs (with letter reversals)...only there might be too many permutations of Ne to even successfully create such a guide with. XD Do something though!


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Very interesting! The "broader context" you speak of is exactly what I've seen in Ne doms and auxes - a very interesting difference between Ne and Ni, which seems to create new contexts altogether to operate. Hmm...I think I have to believe that some of you are "all of the above" within 5 minutes now that you trapped me with this question, hehe. So, I suppose that you guys are open to even experimenting with playing stupid to expand your own understanding of something, like deliberately ignoring everything you know to be true just to wrap your mind around a new concept or something? XD Wow, that would be a bit freaky to think that some of the dumb ones I know might not even be dumb at all, but quite the contrary (like one day, they might suddenly come across as geniuses out of the blue)...I'm sort of doubting this, but now that you mention it...hmmm...


Yeah, basically this. It could be strategic for both an ENFP and ENTP. The ENTP wanting to be underestimated in order to easily exceed expectations and the ENFP doing so because they don't want too make others feel intellectually inferior. Or something.

And I am going to have to disagree with you and @LiquidLight about the whole big picture thing. The way I look at this, using the example of INTJ/ENTP, both types are big picture thinkers in different ways. We must remember that a single function doesn't determine anything in terms of a person's manifestation. I would surmise that the INTJ's Ni has no frame without Te. Likewise, Ne wouldn't know where to stop without Ti. The way I see it is that Ni/Te creates a picture based on what's known. Ne/Ti notices a picture based on what isn't known. I don't think the former makes the latter less of a big picture thinker. The picture is just different.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

mkeath said:


> Yeah, basically this. It could be strategic for both an ENFP and ENTP. The ENTP wanting to be underestimated in order to easily exceed expectations and the ENFP doing so because they don't want too make others feel intellectually inferior. Or something.
> 
> And I am going to have to disagree with you and @LiquidLight about the whole big picture thing. The way I look at this, using the example of INTJ/ENTP, both types are big picture thinkers in different ways. We must remember that a single function doesn't determine anything in terms of a person's manifestation. I would surmise that the INTJ's Ni has no frame without Te. Likewise, Ne wouldn't know where to stop without Ti. The way I see it is that Ni/Te creates a picture based on what's known. Ne/Ti notices a picture based on what isn't known. I don't think the former makes the latter less of a big picture thinker. The picture is just different.


My argument wasn't that Ne types can't be big picture thinkers. It's just that Ni is far more concerned with having the broadest possible influences to synthesize a conclusion. Where Ne doesn't really need this. Ne starts with the atom and eventually discovers the universe. Ni starts with the universe and tries to find the atom.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

The so-called bigger picture thinking is a very complicated cognitive process that cannot be assigned to just 2 cognitive functions: Ni and Ne.

There is some discussion on the topic in this publication (skip to section titled intellectual level) which says that some types are prone to see bigger picture first and from there they strive to simplify it down. Other types are prone to see details first, then from there evolve and create more complexity i.e. they actually create that bigger picture. Interestingly enough two types that are dominant in Ni and Ne functions, INFJ and ENFP, belong to the former category that sees bigger picture first then strives to reduce its complexity, while INTJs and ENTPs belong to the second group that strives to create a bigger picture.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Owfin said:


> I have made a theory that _all_ percieving functions are big picture thinkers (who wants the small picture?), but go about it in different ways.


Ultimately, I agree with this! I'm pretty sure I haven't seen anyone outwardly admit "I prefer the details to the big picture". We've been led to think that that's the "correct answer". Everyone thinks they see the big picture, but in fact most people don't. You can see this in university in the way people cram for courses, and then forget everything. A big picture is hard to forget, but details are easy to.

I'm not sure about the rest of your premise though. I'll build on what others have said.



LiquidLight said:


> Ni is much more big picture oriented than Ne (this is relative of course to the subject).





JungyesMBTIno said:


> The environment is the limiting factor of Ne in oh so many various ways per individual, since Ne is basically the subconscious projected onto the environment, and is thus (as an independent function), very vulnerable and suggestible to so many external cues that shape the way it presents itself in individuals[...]


I agree and I like both your wording! I'm not making out Ni to be superior to Ne, but as an extroverted function, Ne depends on external stimuli. This gives one type of "big picture", where there are infinite possibilities and connections. Ni functions on subjective _internal_ stimulus (subconscious thoughts arising, etc), so it creates a different type of "big picture", one of infinite possibilities for change.

I understand the sensing functions to a lesser extent. An Se user can see yet another type of "big picture", when they see the world as it is, and enjoy it for what it is, wholly. An Si user sees a different "big picture" when they see how the entire trends of the past fit in with the present, how everything is a sequence of data that builds on itself.

So yes, in a way, all four perceiving functions can see a "big picture" but it really depends on how you define such ^_^;


----------



## cue5c (Oct 12, 2011)

mkeath said:


> The ENTP wanting to be *underestimated in order to easily exceed expectations* and the ENFP doing so because they don't want too make others feel intellectually inferior. Or something.


I'd say strategically having others underestimate you applies to both, if only because of personal experience. roud:

As for this thread, I'm not as enlightened when it comes to functions as most of you, but I just wanted to say the pe theory makes a lot of sense for me. I always wondered about the "big picture" statement, because sometimes I can get carried away in the details.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Hmm, now in hindsight with these two threads, it makes sense that my Ne idea was accurate, because what it was really describing was the system-oriented Pe perception in general. Whereas my Pi description was in actuality a description of Si-Ne. :wink:


----------

