# The difference between Ne and Ni



## Gracie

What the hell is it?? :crazy:

Seriously, can somebody please explain to me the differences between introverted and extroverted intuition? I'm fascinated.


----------



## L'Empereur

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





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





> Ne: Generating possibilities, leaping from one idea to the next with only the vaguest idea of how one got to that conclusion without a through tracing, thinking in a tree pattern- each idea spawning more
> 
> Ni: Drawing conclusions, all the pieces coming together subconsciously to form a whole, going from pieces to the final form without all the middle steps
> 
> One clever person on another forum stated this more concisely sort of like:
> 
> Ne: AB... Balloon, floating, Chickadee, insane asylum, Z!
> Ni: ABC....Z





> Extroverted intuition (Ne) is an extroverted, irrational, and static information element. It is also called Ne, I, intuition of possibilities, or black intuition.
> 
> Ne is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others.
> 
> Types that value Ne prefer to try out an opportunity rather than consider all possible ways in which it could not work out. They pick a few options and stick with them, in contrast to introverted intuition (Ni) types who pick one option and continue to doubt that option.
> 
> They enjoy discussing unusual insights into the nature of the world and crazy out-there ideas, like space elevators.





> Introverted intuition (Ni) is an introverted, irrational, and dynamic information element. It is also called Ni, T, temporal intuition, or white intuition.
> 
> Ni is generally associated with the ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery, and see intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects.
> 
> Types that value Ni always like to have in mind a specific plan for how their life will develop in the future. Thus they have little time for the concept of "living for the moment" or "making the best of the present". They generally engage in pure leisure activities only for short periods of time, and even then their leisure activities generally involve a psychologically demanding or competitive aspect.




................


----------



## simulatedworld

In short, Ni is about integrating numerous different (and often seemingly contradictory) interpretations into one total interpretation that escapes the confines of the unconscious assumptions made by each one on its own. It's about changing one's personal interpretation of meaning and significance in order to view an idea from many different conceptual standpoints.

Ni is convergent, because it takes many different ideas and looks for that which no single one of them can accomplish on its own--they all come together into one greater total perspective. Ni starts with a goal or problem in mind and then works backwards to determine the most effective way to unite all the different interpretations of that problem into the most effective plan of action.


Ne is about inferring connections between unrelated contexts to predict the next part of a larger pattern that hasn't yet been discovered. It's about leaping into the unknown solely for the purpose of potentially discovering some new combination of interesting, novel or fascinating ideas, actions or patterns.

Ne is different from Ni because it doesn't start with a particular goal or purpose in mind--it's focused on taking in the largest quantity of new information that we can, because the more random new contexts we have access to the more likely it is we'll discover something interesting that will strike others as novel or unusual. In this way Ne is divergent, because rather than attempt to integrate many existing interpretations into the most useful course of action, it attempts to suggest as many different new options as possible by leaving no stone unturned in its search for new patterns of possibilities for change.

Ne might see the next 6 months worth of steps required for 20 different options at once (quantity/breadth), while Ni chooses one of those options at a time and intuits the next 10 years worth of steps down that single path (quality/depth.) They can work well together because Ne can generate a lot of new options very quickly, while Ni is better at determining which of those options will work best and why.


----------



## hood

I kinda feel like Ne is sorta like collecting new colors from the outside world unconsciously...(not literally colors just using that as an example) the more colors you collect the more colors you can create yourself, and it's energizing to collect and create them. Don't know much about Ni since I don't use it...


----------



## Goaty

Ne exhales a variety of possiblities from one idea, Ni inhales all ideas and unites them into one principle or pattern.

Ni is convergent, Ne is divergent.

Ni is fusion, Ne is fission.

Ne thinks outside the box, Ni thinks _about_ the box.

EDIT: Here's a very helpful link if you would like some more reading about the difference.


----------



## dorareever

Ni knows things that it can't explain
Ne doesn't know anything for sure but it's pretty good at explaining exactly what it doesn't know.

:tongue:


----------



## SubterraneanHomesickAlien

The simplest way for me to understand it is:
Ne - Uses intuition to process information from the outside world, which is then analyzed and refined into a theory using introverted decision-making function (Ti/Fi)
Ni - Generates ideas or "visions" that are already fully-formed, that the extroverted decision-making functions (Te/Fe) then attempt to make the outside world look like. 

So in essence,
Ne types = Drawing from the outside world to shape their inside world
Ni types = Drawing from their inside world to shape the outside world


----------



## WildWinds

Ne sees what could be, Ni sees what should be.

Ne makes connections with novel novel. Ni makes connections in information thats already there.


----------



## Eric B

SubterraneanHomesickAlien said:


> The simplest way for me to understand it is:
> Ne - Uses intuition to process information from the outside world, which is then analyzed and refined into a theory using introverted decision-making function (Ti/Fi)
> Ni - Generates ideas or "visions" that are already fully-formed, that the extroverted decision-making functions (Te/Fe) then attempt to make the outside world look like.


 Great way of putting it. I've called those visions "templates", and they can also be used to guage how a situation will turn out. Hence, Ni often being associated with the future.


----------



## MilkyWay132

SubterraneanHomesickAlien said:


> The simplest way for me to understand it is:
> Ne - Uses intuition to process information from the outside world, which is then analyzed and refined into a theory using introverted decision-making function (Ti/Fi)
> Ni - Generates ideas or "visions" that are already fully-formed, that the extroverted decision-making functions (Te/Fe) then attempt to make the outside world look like.
> 
> So in essence,
> Ne types = Drawing from the outside world to shape their inside world
> Ni types = Drawing from their inside world to shape the outside world


Thanks. Now I know that I definitely use more Ne than Ni.


----------



## Xplosive

MilkyWay132 said:


> Thanks. Now I know that I definitely use more Ne than Ni.


Then you aren't an ISFP?


----------



## simulatedworld

SubterraneanHomesickAlien said:


> So in essence,
> Ne types = Drawing from the outside world to shape their inside world
> Ni types = Drawing from their inside world to shape the outside world


Note: This is simply the definition of introverted/extroverted. It's not just limited to Ne vs. Ni.

Extroversion uses objective information to make the internal self more like that external ideal.

Introversion uses subjective information to make the external world more like that internal ideal.


----------



## Adamantya

so, is it possible to use both equally well (or badly, as the case may be?) I'm pretty sure I'm an INFJ, so I should be all up on the Ni, but I don't have any long-range completely-mapped-out plans for a certain outcome, and I do like to come up with multiple possibilities/outcomes for a given situation. ...? I do get those aha moments sometimes though.


----------



## Up and Away

Adamantya: "I do like to come up with multiple possibilities/outcomes for a given situation" 

For perceiving functions, our extroverted function "explores," and our introverted function decides which data is important.

What gets confusing, is that the extroverted function also decides which data is important, but that is because they are receiving instruction from the judging functions. It is a constant loop- J- P- J- p etc..

Se explores the environment via the 5 senses, and then Ni data from the possibilities of what we JUSt experienced. The confusing thing is sometimes we say that Ni is exploring possibilities. Well yes, but said like that, it is Ne, what Ni does is explore and sort through the possibilities that Se, the extroverted function, has focused on, and store the data, sending it over to J functions to assign value and reconfigure our future thinking.

Ne explores the possibilities, sort of, rather than having the Earth's terrain to experience, Ne can go in the head, and twist the terrain around, or even intangible thoughts around, to think about possibilities. Out of these possibilities, Si will then decide which is relevant sifting through the possibilities. Ne Si will drive without noticing road signs often times enough etc..

If you think in this way, that we must always use S, and always use N, then it is just a matter of deciding how you will be extroverted while perceiving.

The reason we actually have a difference between S and N, and simply don't say Pe and Pi, is because there are subtle differences from our judging functions that we assign on to the perceiving functions. Instead of looking at it as a pair of perceiving and judging working together, we try to isolate the variables, and therefore assign some of thhe judging properties to the introverted function. Really though, the introverted perceiving function just orders the data in a simple way based on a congruency between the judging and extroverted perceiving function. *And by extroverted, I mean, even if you are in your head reliving or considering, you are still picturing images from the external world.*

Anyway we have both S and N to help us define some of the ethics and values, which helps us create more personality types, etc.. So we use them in pairs, only Se Ni for example, not Ne Ni, because that is what the system is based on, for clarity sake. If we change the properties, then all the assigned characteristics of each personality type would have to be rewritten. It is not that it can't be done for any of them.

I'm just assigning the basic values to the functions at this point, and to expain why it isnt Ne Ni, beyond that because the descriptions are written that way, would be to get into specific character ethics that effect the perceiving function.

Here is an example of confusion: ""In short, Ni is about integrating numerous different (and often seemingly contradictory) interpretations into one total interpretation that escapes the confines of the unconscious assumptions made by each one on its own. It's about changing one's personal interpretation of meaning and significance in order to view an idea from many different conceptual standpoints."

The thing is, of course the perceiving function is about integrating interpretations. Thats what our mind does, it thinks and interprets. We arent talking about liver function, that processes and secretes bile. We are talking about thoughts. This description is also part of Si. Once we add some ethics to it though, we apparently Im seeing now, assign things like "Ni prefers to think about meanings, where as Si prefers to think about whatever is important in the past." How silly can that really be? What if Si has thought about meanings in the past? that is completely ridiculous. Assigning ethics to perceiving functions, as a singular seperate function attitude is ridiculous. "Attitudes" only come with I suppose an example would be @Eric B's archeatypes. Not singular functions. *No wonder I was so confused...........*

We can obviously shift between them and use both. That is why we can score high on the function analysis test with all functions. The thing Jung does though is assign preference, which gives us a typical way that peopel react to stress and danger. And since without danger we would all just get along and be happy, it is good to think of it from this conflict theory, in order to defend ourselves against the possible conflict and therefore get along etc.. But yea we can shift using both.

After we take in data and decide what is relevant, we actually at the same time of deciding what is relevant are starting to use our Judging functions. In fact, if you look at functions in pairs, you are either say using (Ne, Si), or then (Si, J) for example.

The reason we our wired like this, is because Si or Ni wouldn't know how to order and configure the new data that they deem relevant, without the use of T or F.

Really, each cognitive function attitude is acting like a filter.

Jung simply chopped the mind filter up into 8 portions, assigned them congruent filter abilities, and wrote of their qualities.

However, parts in a filter work together. Our top 4 functions work together most certainly in a continuous loop.

We might confuse Ji and Pi, for example, Ti and Ni. They sound very similar in function, and in fact they are. They filter information for the purpose of the mind. However, J functions are geared towards configuring the data we have already taken in from P.

Another thing to note, is that, J functions are our ethics, so, we don't have to consider our ethics everytime we think, and when we do consider, we are back to perceiving. It is a series of 0's and 1's for good and bad labeled on everything. In fact, the perceiving functions can assign 0 and 1 values to new data, because we can relate it to old data. The J functions then order this new data one on top of the other. 

For example, if we assign a value to red that is good, and connect it to the value of yellow, which is good, T and F might theoretically combine the good of red and yellow to say that orange is also good. Shitty example I know, but initially, when exploring the possibility of what could orange be, we are using the perceiving function, but when we try to order it, refer to the post on real life examples for cognitive functions and go to the orange part. The example is fully lined out there.


----------



## Naturalist

Adamantya said:


> so, is it possible to use both equally well (or badly, as the case may be?) I'm pretty sure I'm an INFJ, so I should be all up on the Ni, but I don't have any long-range completely-mapped-out plans for a certain outcome, and I do like to come up with multiple possibilities/outcomes for a given situation. ...? I do get those aha moments sometimes though.


It also depends on whether you're looking at Socionics or MBTI. I tend to lean a little more to seeing Socionics as the more complete theory, but personality typing is complex regardless. In Socionics an INFj uses introverted ethics as her primary function and Extroverted Intuition as the secondary function. An INFj also has as a strong function Introverted Intuition, but tends to ignore this function in favor for Extroverted Intuition. Maybe you'd like to read the INFj profile here: http: //personalitycafe.com/infj-articles/12775-socionics-description-best-infj-guide-ever-written.html

I'm pretty sure my mind operates like that of an INTj. I got a pretty static mindset where I have one logical consistent structure with 'fundamental laws'. I love to apply my complete understanding at a conceptual level and discover how they apply practically in various different contexts where there may be undiscovered potential, which seems to me like Extroverted Intuition. 

On personality page it says about the INTJ: _However, their primary interest is not understanding a concept, but rather applying that concept in a useful way. _

Applying a concept usefully, creatively, strategically sounds like extroverted intuition to me. The description of a MBTI INTJ is much like the INTj in Socionics. A clear overlaps can be seen here:

*Socionics INTj:*

They use such analyses not only for the sake of theorizing as such – although they do enjoy theorizing for its own sake – but mainly with the aim of deciding what to do next; in other words, to establish their strategy. So INTjs are, essentially, analysts and strategists.

*MBTI INTJ:*

However, their primary interest is not understanding a concept, but rather applying that concept in a useful way.


----------



## Metaplanar

Another try at an analogy:

Ni = Depth-first search
Ne = Breadth-first search

In both, the focus is on connections, interpretations, and possible developments as opposed to the immediate concrete facts.


----------



## roxtehproxy

Ne; the way extraverted iNtuition works is by taking an object or subject, and using the existing or related components to match similar ones. If it were looking at a cow, you could go from cow, grass and then end up at backyard.

Ni; introverted iNtuition does just the opposite. It looks at more than one object or subject and sort of refines it into a new object or subject. Same analogy: but instead, we start with cow and grass. We then arrive at backyard.

But they could both arrive at anything. Those are just examples lol. :tongue:


----------



## Eric B

From a discussion I've had, I was told Ni looks to see where a pattern (in a situation) *wants* to go (by looking outside the pattern, at internalized patterns), and I figured Ne in contrast looks at where a pattern CAN go (whether it "wants" to or not), from looking at the situation in light of the external patterns.


----------



## phantom_cat

Ne begins from a starting point and branches out.

Ni sees the full picture without knowing it.

Ne is like "this can be done, but not that. so that means... this can be done. ah, that doesn't work, so I'll just continue from what can be done." 1 starting point diverging into many paths. it's about discovery.

Ni skips all that and once the right question is asked an answer is given. many parts converge into 1 answer. it's about uncovering.


----------



## Eric B

Here's another way of putting it: Ne is inferring a pattern from the object, and Ni is inferring from an internalized (subjective) pattern


----------



## Up and Away

Eric B said:


> From a discussion I've had, I was told Ni looks to see where a pattern (in a situation) *wants* to go (by looking outside the pattern, at internalized patterns), and I figured Ne in contrast looks at where a pattern CAN go (whether it "wants" to or not), from looking at the situation in light of the external patterns.


So Ni is more practical than Ne?


----------



## Eric B

Neither is necessarily more practical; they just look at things from a different angle. The particular situation might determine which might be more practical at the time.


----------



## bluenlgy

A very simple definition:

Ni likes to solve problems, *with an emphasis on the past*, while Ne likes to create problems, *focusing mainly on the future*

One is backward (reverse) engineering and the other is forward engineering


----------



## Abraxas

Give an Ne the primary colors and they'll invent the whole visible spectrum.

Give an Ni the primary colors and they'll invent black or white, depending on their mood.

That's how I look at it.


----------



## Cheekymuffin

Abraxas said:


> Give an Ne the primary colors and they'll invent the whole visible spectrum.
> 
> Give an Ni the primary colors and they'll invent black or white, depending on their mood.
> 
> That's how I look at it.


What????!!!! This is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. We deserve an explanation at least.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

Cheekymuffin said:


> What????!!!! This is the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. We deserve an explanation at least.


 Basically, Ne will generate many possibilities from given data and Ni will generate one meta-perspective. So if you give Ne primary colors, they'll give you the color spectrum since that's every possible color. If you give Ni primary colors, they'll combine them to create a whole, which would be black or white (depending on whether or not you're mixing pigments or light, of course).


----------



## Zero_Origin

Ni meets Ne:






That about sums it up :laughing:


----------



## Donkey D Kong

Would it be correct to say this?

- Ne takes a single subject and uses it to find a limitless amount of ideas out of a pattern
- Ni takes a pattern of ideas and forms a single idea


----------



## saffron

Axe said:


> Would it be correct to say this?
> 
> - Ne takes a single subject and uses it to find a limitless amount of ideas out of a pattern
> - Ni takes a pattern of ideas and forms a single idea


Ne also finds/sees a limitless amount of patterns since there are often endless amounts of variables.


----------



## FlatteringlyDerisive

Well, with all the previous explanations, I have considered Ni to allow one to transcend an understanding to great depths. Ne will stay on the level of understanding and invent upon that. So with Ne one may observe how the Laws of Physics work and invent upon random generally-purposeless contraptions of various functions. You can rely on Ni to lead one to creating something that overwrites the Laws of Physics such as making a teleporting device. Ne recognizes patterns with focus of the physical reality before them, so they work with models and actually have a grip of reality. Ni envisions patterns with focus on it's intangible world of perception, so it works with deeply-thought ideas and profound ambitions often without a grip on reality. It kind of innovates new reality if the ideas and visions are properly worked through. Ni gets creative with the internal world, so it allows multiple perspectives and has a metaphysical orientation. Ne gets creative directly with the external world, thus it creates inventions. Ne is good at seeing the many ways an object can be used. Ni is good at seeing the many ways a subject can be used. 

Ni is often envisioning the intangible, thus perceiving patterns to "foresee" the future, generate the "whole picture" with little data, transcend understanding to new levels, and comprehending symbols and paradoxes with ease. Ni is the farthest from reality you can get. Ne is observing the physical patterns of reality. 

Ni sets in mind a vivid vision of how things will work, envisioning systems. Ne does so with direct reality. 

Se works with "facts" in the physical world (feeling the breeze while you dive down 100 feet of extreme). Si works with facts inside the mind (remembering how touching the hot bowl straight out of the oven was/is a bad idea). Ne works with patterns in the physical world (experimenting with people to see what makes a great aftermath of terror). Ni works with patterns inside the mind (innovating a way to effectively resurrect an army of obedient minions involving a very complex sequence of events while trying to figure every philosophical interpretation of such, all in the mind before making one step). 

Si works with facts in the mind, but you can't really change anything about facts, hence the definition. But with Ni, you can work with patterns in the mind while changing the patterns as desired. It is like a number squared. 1 fact squared has 1 potential possibility (the Si). But with a system, say 5, would be 25 if squared (the Ni). Si works with facts and can move the facts around, but can't do much of it. Ni works with systems in which allows some creativity. Ni shifts patterns around in the mind with ease, and INTJs thus have very well-thought visions of what must happen before they even leave their room. Ne changes patterns, but with less insight as with Ni, although more directly. Sometimes Ni is just good for storytelling while Ne is able move stuff around. Ni is more serious and wise with ideas, while Ne is often more goofy with ideas. 

So... in conclusion, Ni works with patterns in the mind, and Ne works with patterns in reality. Ne will say, "Hey, let's not waste resources on these traditional funerals, but use the death holes for making pool parties, and there can be zebras!" Ni will say, "I figured you'd say something like that." 

Ahhh...


----------



## FlatteringlyDerisive

Oh and also, since Ni has the ability to create new reality, I will post something I heard about Ni. If you ask a simple yes or no answer, Ni will give you a third response. It finds new solutions. There isn't an easy way to define the functions, as all these previous descriptions are side-effects of the functions. Perhaps we should try symbolizing them with a word or image/concept. Ni expands the user's vision of the universe, so Ni = Zen Buddhism. Ne = Chuck Testa.


----------



## gambit

Just FYI: 
I'm not sure it makes sense to say that a function is about the past because the past has already happened, so that doesn't tell us about an introverted function in the moment.
It also doesn't seem to be a good idea to simply say that Ne is about creating possibilities and Ni isn't, since what Ni creates becomes an Ne possibility if it is expressed. It would be better to say that the Ne function is about expressing Ni, whereas the Ni function is about denying expression of Ne.

imo, the theoretical difference seems to boil down to the following (which seems to be the consensus anyway, but I'm hoping this adds further clarity):
Ni puts more focus on taking in and synthesizing the possible trends and patterns of the moment of reality into some particular kind of cohesive internal understanding; many external pieces form the overall internal understanding.
Ne puts more focus on taking in and synthesizing the possible trends and patterns of the moment of reality into many broadly expressed pieces; overall internal understandings form newly expressed pieces.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

This is the way I experience and understand them, bare with me as I describe ideas as physical, tangible things.
Ne is like a transparent brain in a room with ideas flying in every direction in and out of it. The brain has the ability to collect as many of these ideas as it likes and start making relationships between them.
Ni is like a the same brain in a narrow hallway sending a singular idea out words down the hallway were it converges with a much larger universal idea that is in a spotlight illuminated at the end of the hallway.


----------



## RosieJones468

Could someone give some specific examples or situations to show the difference between Ne and Ni? I'm having trouble deciding if I'm INFP or INFJ. I go through a lot of phases where I get ideas from some show I watched it person I know of things that I could do and I start trying to make them into a reality - reorganising my stuff/taking up new hobbies/buying new things. The phase usually only lasts a little while before my excitement for it runs out. I also get excited thinking about loads of possibilities someone else could be or I could be. Like, if I saw someone who was quite poor and lazy but I saw a talent in them, I get very excited thinking about what that talent could do - they could start a business, they could get in shape, they could sell these things to get more money and use that to fund his business etc. That makes me think I'm Ne.

However, I do relate to the Ni descriptions a lot. I'm constantly trying to come to a final conclusion in my head about certain things in life. I want to just make a final decision about say what my purpose is in life, what's important in life etc. I try to come to these conclusions by noticing patterns of what has happened before and what that led to. In this chaotic world of so many contradicting opinions, I want to come to a final conclusion on the world and everything in it - what's important and what isn't so I know how I should act and what I should value. I don't think I have 'strong gut feelings about the future' though. To me the future is very uncertain. I don't know how things will pan out for anyone. I do also have 'Aha moments'. When everything kind of fits into place in my head and I have an epiphany - it's like everything suddenly connects and a final conclusion about something is made. So that makes me think Ni...

Please could someone give some specific situations with an Ne user and an Ni user and what they would do differently?


----------



## Belzy

RosieJones468 said:


> Could someone give some specific examples or situations to show the difference between Ne and Ni? I'm having trouble deciding if I'm INFP or INFJ.


If you are a total mess like me, you could have Ne.

Having brains that are out of control. I have no control over them, they are all over the place, and rarely do what I want them to do. They make me suffer even though I want to enjoy life, they don't let me.

My brains are never satisfied with me and my doings.


----------



## Eric B

RosieJones468 said:


> However, I do relate to the Ni descriptions a lot. I'm constantly trying to come to a final conclusion in my head about certain things in life. I want to just make a final decision about say what my purpose is in life, what's important in life etc. I try to come to these conclusions by noticing *patterns of what has happened before and what that led to*. In this chaotic world of so many contradicting opinions, I want to come to a final conclusion on the world and everything in it - what's important and what isn't so I know how I should act and what I should value. I don't think I have 'strong gut feelings about the future' though. To me the future is very uncertain. I don't know how things will pan out for anyone. I do also have 'Aha moments'. When everything kind of fits into place in my head and I have an epiphany - it's like everything suddenly connects and *a final conclusion about something is made*. So that makes me think Ni...
> 
> Please could someone give some specific situations with an Ne user and an Ni user and what they would do differently?


Patterns of what happened before is SiNe, which has been dubbed "*Inquiring Awareness*" (it's basically referencing Si data and then using it to *compare* patterns, which are then considered sorts of "objects" for Ne to guage. NiSe is "*Realizing Awareness*", where data comes to you "*as is*", without comparing. (These terms are much better than "Xy _user_"). Ni doesn't necessarily reference "_past_" patterns, at least not consciously. Ni is about stuff that comes up from the unconscious, which may be past, but then this is not some "reference" like that, which sounds more conscious, and would thus be Si; and If I'm understanding it right, it's not really fully formed patterns being "noticed", for that would be Ne "objects" again. A pattern is what's "filled in" by the Ni data, as it was described to me.

So this can produce "aha moments", but I think really any introverted function can as well. With Si, if a sudden concrete memory comes up, then you may say "_Aha_, now I remember...". With Fi and Ti, it's when something clicks with the internal sense of what's right or wrong (which is essentially what judgment functions are about). "A final *conclusion* about something" is _*judgment*_. Perception doesn't make conclusions; it only takes in the data. You have an internal sense of how things should be, which is expressed as "in place", so when the data being taken in mattches, that produces a judgment of "_right_", and this can be expressed as "aha". And what you're describing sounds like an Fi judgment (internal sense of what's ["right"=]"good", in the "personal" terms of valuing, which determines course of action).


----------



## RosieJones468

Eric B said:


> Patterns of what happened before is SiNe, which has been dubbed "*Inquiring Awareness*" (it's basically referencing Si data and then using it to *compare* patterns, which are then considered sorts of "objects" for Ne to guage. NiSe is "*Realizing Awareness*", where data comes to you "*as is*", without comparing. (These terms are much better than "Xy _user_"). Ni doesn't necessarily reference "_past_" patterns, at least not consciously. Ni is about stuff that comes up from the unconscious, which may be past, but then this is not some "reference" like that, which sounds more conscious, and would thus be Si; and If I'm understanding it right, it's not really fully formed patterns being "noticed", for that would be Ne "objects" again. A pattern is what's "filled in" by the Ni data, as it was described to me.
> 
> So this can produce "aha moments", but I think really any introverted function can as well. With Si, if a sudden concrete memory comes up, then you may say "_Aha_, now I remember...". With Fi and Ti, it's when something clicks with the internal sense of what's right or wrong (which is essentially what judgment functions are about). "A final *conclusion* about something" is _*judgment*_. Perception doesn't make conclusions; it only takes in the data. You have an internal sense of how things should be, which is expressed as "in place", so when the data being taken in mattches, that produces a judgment of "_right_", and this can be expressed as "aha". And what you're describing sounds like an Fi judgment (internal sense of what's ["right"=]"good", in the "personal" terms of valuing, which determines course of action).


Thank you that was really helpful!


----------

