# Understanding Introverted Intuition



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

I'm tired of seeing this function butchered so here's a direct reference to Jung's portrait and my own interpretation. 



> Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort.


This is why Ni-dominants are referred to as having “internal worlds.” What they experience intuitively, strikes them as being fantasy (subjective images.) That internal world is the Introverted Intuitive’s reality and they concern themselves primarily with this “world.”



> Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function. Like sensation, intuition also has its subjective factor, which is suppressed to the farthest limit in the extraverted intuition, but which becomes the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.
> 
> Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. 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 this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects.*


What is subjective about Ni is it’s tendency to generate internal images for all things observed, experienced, thought, and felt. In this manner, “subjective” does not mean irrational in the face of contrary evidence, or prone to emotionalism over rationality. The understanding is just highly personalized. 

Often times, the subjective image is an impression of the thing at hand. Here the patient associates vertigo (the feeling of falling from a high place) with the image of a man tottering after being hit by an arrow. That image is placed inbetween the experience and the mind perceiving it, so the introverted intuitive, vertigo is not a physiological experience, but the conjured image itself. His “impression” of vertigo is superimposed over the actual sensation, not just associated with it.

In the same vein, we have the story of the intuitive woman that went to visit Jung. She said to him “doctor, I’ve come to you today because I have a snake in my abdomen.” 






The internal images play a recurrent theme and ultimately serve as symbols. That symbolism is perfectly captured by the intuitive woman. As her consultation ended, she reported to Jung that the snake had risen up to her throat and out of her mouth, the head of the snake being golden.

What this symbolizes specifically can be debated, Jung likened it to a concept within the collective unconscious, but what’s most significant relative to this passage is that the Ni-dominant engages his/her imagery with a fervor and *lives* it.



> For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person [...] Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type.


The man experiencing vertigo is a good example of this, he didn’t see himself shot by an arrow, he saw “someone” else.



> The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious [...]


Which is what I meant by the woman with the snake in her abdomen *living* her internal images.



> Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line, i.e. the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types. Hence, in these archetypes all experiences are represented which since primeval time have happened on this planet [...]


There are universal symbols and meanings that appear across cultures that could not have contacted each other, or that existed during different time periods. Gods and entire myths have variations, but they perpetuate the same patterns and themes. The same religious and cultural practices appear universally, again with variations, but the same core principle is found throughout. The same mathematical and scientific laws have been discovered at different times, in different countries, by different men - through eerily similar methods and lines of thought. Even events fall into these archetypal themes and perpetuate themselves across history.

All of the above is based in the collective unconscious.



> Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced.


When we see paintings of children we think “innocence.”

When we see paintings of the elderly we think “wisdom.”

We associate water with rebirth or cleansing. 

That which is below ground houses evil.

The archetypes are truly nothing more than “objects” used to express the collective unconscious. The more frequently the world resonates with the collective unconscious within us, the more solidified and recognizable the archetype becomes.



> Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum, but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences: it can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as the event which later actually transpires. Its prophetic prevision is to be explained from its relation to the archetypes which represent the law-determined course of all experienceable things [...] Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel.


When Ni gets a glimpse of the future, what is actually happening is that the function is noticing external events as naturally falling into archetypes on their own. When these archetypes align properly with the collective unconscious located within, and the external proceedings outside, the infamous “aha” moment occurs.

The Ni-dominant cannot explain the “aha” moment because all they’ve experienced is their subjective imagery, which to them, is really nothing more than “fantasy.” In actuality the subjective imagery affords them a huge advantage, allowing the Introverted Intuitive to ‘create’ archetypes where they have not been repeated enough to be universally recognizable. This is why Ni-dominants are able to churn out insight and foresight even when they’ve no experience in a situation, why they have difficulties expressing themselves, and why their ideas and suggestions seem so odd to others.

Regarding archetypes, it may be best to think of them as being molds. If you funnel something through a mold, it will resemble the mold itself as well as anything else that had been funneled through it. Ni dominants don't predict specific things so much as they notice the general molds that events are being funneled through.



> The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other. The latter might be regarded as the normal case, since there is a general tendency of this type to confine himself to the perceptive character of intuition. As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem, and — in the case of a productive artist-the shaping of perception. But the crank contents himself with the intuition by which he himself is shaped and determined. Intensification of intuition naturally often results in an extraordinary aloofness of the individual from tangible reality; he may even become a complete enigma to his own immediate circle. [p. 509]
> 
> If an artist, he reveals extraordinary, remote things in his art, which in iridescent profusion embrace both the significant and the banal, the lovely and the grotesque, the whimsical and the sublime. If not an artist, he is frequently an unappreciated genius, a great man ‘gone wrong’, a sort of wise simpleton, a figure for ‘psychological’ novels.


Jung alludes to two sub-types within Introverted Intuitive type, the artist and the crank. The artist apparently is content to do nothing more than conjure images, watch them, and play with them. In doing so he alienates himself further and further from reality.



> The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision [...] Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life.


That about sums up the attitude of the crank.



> But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken — it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the ‘voice of one crying in the wilderness’.


In my view, the solution to this is to develop a powerful auxiliary function. Jung viewed the auxiliary as being faced to the same direction as the dominant (Ni-Ti & Ni-Fi) but later theorists disagreed and turned it away from the dominant, a decision I agree with.

What follows is an inferior Se description.



> The introverted intuitive’s chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order. Impulsiveness and unrestraint are the characters of this sensation, combined with an extraordinary dependence upon the sense impression. This latter quality is a compensation to the thin upper air of the conscious attitude, giving it a certain weight, so that complete ‘sublimation’ is prevented. But if, through a forced exaggeration of the conscious attitude, a complete subordination to the inner perception should develop, the unconscious becomes an opposition, giving rise to compulsive sensations whose excessive dependence upon the object is in frank conflict with the conscious attitude. The form of neurosis is a compulsion-neurosis, exhibiting symptoms that are partly hypochondriacal manifestations, partly hypersensibility of the sense organs and partly compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects.


Hopefully not too difficult for the non-Ni types to grasp. I'll clarify or give specific sources as needed.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Using the word fantasy implies that the images the Ni user has are not real to them. When in fact, they are more real than any tangible external object, which can actually be measured. To someone who doesn't experience them, they come across as fantasy, but not to the Ni user. The images are reality. They are subjective to the person who can only identify the object through those personal images. 

Even in Jung's example, the woman said she had a snake in her stomach. She didn't say she imagined one there.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Using the word fantasy implies that the images the Ni user has are not real to them. When in fact, they are more real than any tangible external object, which can actually be measured. To someone who doesn't experience them, they come across as fantasy, but not to the Ni user. The images are reality. They are subjective to the person who can only identify the object through those personal images.
> 
> Even in Jung's example, the woman said she had a snake in her stomach. She didn't say she imagined one there.


The intuitive introvert has awareness of reality, and is aware that their images are not the real world. The patient did not think there was a man being shot in the heart by an arrow in front of him and the woman did not think there was an actual snake in her stomach, she even said so herself at 1:45 - "You know I don't mean it literally, but I should say it was a snake, a snake."

The word fantasy implies that although the function orients itself by extrapolating information from the collective unconscious via archetypes, that is done "unconsciously." They are not aware that they are doing the aforementioned, hence I find the term fitting. Jung defined fantasies as "moving images" and in Psychological Types specifically;



> The output of creative psychic activity [...] In actual everyday psychological experience, fantasy is either set in motion by an intuitive attitude of expectation or it is *an irruption of unconscious contents into consciousness.*


The bold being exactly what introverted intuition does with the collective unconscious. 



> Using the word fantasy implies that the images the Ni user has are not real to them.


That's no interpretation of mine seeing as I stated "That internal world is the Introverted Intuitive’s reality [...] the Ni-dominant engages his/her imagery with a fervor and lives it." A bit of hyperbole given that if they truly believed their images to be reality they'd be in an insane asylum. I was not undermining the subjective importance of their personal imagery to them, which is what I think you meant. Overall a rather odd thing to nit-pick.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Octavian said:


> I'm tired of seeing this function butchered so here's a direct reference to Jung's portrait and my own interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I don't think I have this, I thought I did because I often *consciously *think of parallels and anomalies for things I'm trying to make sense of, often through imagery. But this doesn't seem the same. 

My train of thought often involves reinterpreting objects in my environment, seeing what else they look like, experimenting with them to find interesting patterns which I then wish to share with people. 

Conversation I had earlier:

1) Sibling: "Hahah some people are back at school already but I'm still on holiday."

2) Me: "Well it probably means their next holiday will start earlier than yours."

The thing is I hold similar perspectives to Ni users, and I'm fascinated with similar things it seems:



> There are universal symbols and meanings that appear across cultures that could not have contacted each other, or that existed during different time periods. Gods and entire myths have variations, but they perpetuate the same patterns and themes. The same religious and cultural practices appear universally, again with variations, but the same core principle is found throughout. The same mathematical and scientific laws have been discovered at different times, in different countries, by different men - through eerily similar methods and lines of thought. Even events fall into these archetypal themes and perpetuate themselves across history.


 - This is almost exactly how I explain how I see things, and why I feel like in many ways everything is kind of similar and connected, it's difficult to say that something is truly new.


----------



## TheOddRhombus (Jul 30, 2014)

Thanks for the very informative thread. I am not new to typology, but regardless I still really struggled with grasping what Ni really is. - Will


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Octavian said:


> The intuitive introvert has awareness of reality, and is aware that their images are not the real world.


It is real and it isn't fantasy. Just because someone views objects in a different way, it doesn't mean their way isn't real. Sensors are the ones who want the tangible information in order to identify objects as real. Intuitives (especially Ni) only need an intangible image to identify an object and the reality of that object. 



> The patient did not think there was a man being shot in the heart by an arrow in front of him and the woman did not think there was an actual snake in her stomach, she even said so herself at 1:45 - "You know I don't mean it literally, but I should say it was a snake, a snake."


You are confusing literal with real. Vertigo is real, the image the person saw didn't make the vertigo any less real. They only perceived it in an intangible way. Instead of identifying the tangible internal bodily sensations, they were identifying the intangible image instead. Both ways identify the vertigo and both are real. 



> The word fantasy implies that although the function orients itself by extrapolating information from the collective unconscious via archetypes, that is done "unconsciously." They are not aware that they are doing the aforementioned, hence I find the term fitting. Jung defined fantasies as "moving images" and in Psychological Types specifically;
> 
> The bold being exactly what introverted intuition does with the collective unconscious.


I disagree with the word. I don't think imagination and intuition are the same thing. They are separate. The point of perception is to identify objects. Ni isn't creating for the sake of creating. It is associating something they have observed with the new observation in order to grasp its essence. The image of the arrow wasn't something they had never seen before and created new. They compared the arrow to the sensation they couldn't identify. Once identified they would know in the future it's vertigo and would no longer need the image. 



> That's no interpretation of mine seeing as I stated "That internal world is the Introverted Intuitive’s reality [...] the Ni-dominant engages his/her imagery with a fervor and lives it." A bit of hyperbole given that if they truly believed their images to be reality they'd be in an insane asylum. I was not undermining the subjective importance of their personal imagery to them, which is what I think you meant. Overall a rather odd thing to nit-pick.


I'm not sure you understand the imagery based on your OP, which is why I made my statement. It's contradictory to say the image is fantasy and then say they live it, unless you think Ni types live only in fantasies. That would be a true reason to enter a psych ward. It isn't fantasy. It is reality, seen through reoriented subjective imagery. It isn't Ni users thinking people are snakes and assassins or something.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

@Kathy Kane Your points do nothing to contradict mine, they even mirror mine at some places. You seem primarily concerned with pushing your specific interpretation in your specific wording which is frankly nonsensical, petty with the semantics even where I use dictionary definitions (oh, how familiar) and really just reminiscent of verbal diarrhea so that'll be all from me.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Octavian said:


> @Kathy Kane Your points do nothing to contradict mine, they even mirror mine at some places. You seem primarily concerned with pushing your specific interpretation in your specific wording which is frankly nonsensical, petty with the semantics even where I use dictionary definitions (oh, how familiar) and really just reminiscent of verbal diarrhea so that'll be all from me.


In other words, you can't give a coherent response so you throw out personal attacks. Classy.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Wow ^


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

This post is amazing, but if you were seeking "clarify", (no offense) you might have done the opposite. I.e. you didn't exactly make it simple. 

One big point though:* highly personalized.*

*highly. personalized. *

Thats why being asked "what are you thinking about?" is such torture. 

My best answer: "trust me, it would make no damn sense to you."

response: "stop being so damn secretive."

"I'm not being secretive... but seriously.... _it wouldn't make sense to you_."

So maybe this thread is, in some ways, all you need to know about Ni. i.e. you have no clue what's going on but sense on some level that is all makes sense.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> This post is amazing, but if you were seeking "clarify", (no offense) you might have done the opposite. I.e. you didn't exactly make it simple.
> 
> One big point though:* highly personalized.*
> 
> ...


Your signature about spirits on a human journey is exactly what I was told at a retreat I went to a few weeks ago..interesting.

Ni is also very interesting, I thought I had it for a while, but then I realized I was kinda forcing it, waiting for it to hit me but it was never there.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

I have a really hard time understanding how anyone thinks *without* Ni but I guess thats just natural. I.e. how do you know whats really true in life?? How do you come to conclusions you can trust? Whats your inner guidance in life?


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> I have a really hard time understanding how anyone thinks *without* Ni but I guess thats just natural. I.e. how do you know whats really true in life?? How do you come to conclusions you can trust? Whats your inner guidance in life?


Lol I feel similarly about Ti.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Octavian said:


> The introverted intuitive’s chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order. Impulsiveness and unrestraint are the characters of this sensation, combined with an extraordinary dependence upon the sense impression. This latter quality is a compensation to the thin upper air of the conscious attitude, giving it a certain weight, so that complete ‘sublimation’ is prevented. But if, through a forced exaggeration of the conscious attitude, a complete subordination to the inner perception should develop, the unconscious becomes an opposition, giving rise to compulsive sensations whose excessive dependence upon the object is in frank conflict with the conscious attitude. The form of neurosis is a compulsion-neurosis, exhibiting symptoms that are partly hypochondriacal manifestations, partly hypersensibility of the sense organs and partly compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects.


I think I understand most of this. The part I quoted above I'm not sure about. I have been trying to understand the relation to Se and the shadow functions (Fe, Ti, Si, etc.) and that's the bit that I find more challenging. This explanation of Se sounds as though the inferior Se is a consequence of the Ni, which is within consciousness, essentially having a superiority complex and perceiving processing via the senses as "inferior". And, if I am interpreting correctly, the inferior Se then backfires and this results in "compulsion-neurosis", and those issues mentioned at the end (hypersensitive to sense organs, hyponchondriasis, etc.) But these things sound closer to Si to me which is our "devil" function. They are things I can relate to personally, as things I've struggled with, although I'm still not clear how inferior Se is involved. Inferior Si in an ENTP seems indistinguishable from these "symptoms."

I definitely get the "fantasy" thing though. I think this is why we need Te. Personally I can't really rely on my ideas without finding some way to actualize them, otherwise for all I know they're just ideas in my head. Like the boogieman or something. And for all I know I could be delusional. (personally though I think I need to learn to trust myself more, haha.)


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Great description.
The more I read about Ni, the more I don't want to identify with it anymore. It sounds overwhelming. A black hole that consumes all sources of information and leaves you with a vague, cryptic answer.
All the other functions seem more down to earth. More human.


----------



## SilverRain (May 15, 2014)

When I've meditated quite a bit, putting my mind into more of an introverted state, I'll occasionally have symbols, meanings or understandings pop into my mind out of nowhere. Even though it feels weird to not be able to trace where the information has come from, I've learned to trust it since it seems to be accurate. There's typically a sureness, a rightness to information that later turns out to be true. If this is something along the lines of what Ni's experience, and they've had years to understand it can be relied upon, it seems as if it would be as stable a way as any to gain information.

I'd be curious as to whether what I experience is Ni or something else.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

TruthDismantled said:


> Yeah I don't think I have this, I thought I did because I often *consciously *think of parallels and anomalies for things I'm trying to make sense of, often through imagery. But this doesn't seem the same.
> 
> My train of thought often involves reinterpreting objects in my environment, seeing what else they look like, experimenting with them to find interesting patterns which I then wish to share with people.


Sounds more like Ne to me. Ni is moreso fixated with the subject. Not the object itself, but the image it evokes. The way that image can be interpreted. 



> This is almost exactly how I explain how I see things, and why I feel like in many ways everything is kind of similar and connected, it's difficult to say that something is truly new.


That was alluding the collective unconscious which is within each individual. Specifically, Jung believed the psyche was composed of three parts: the ego, unconscious, and collective unconscious, all three comprising the "self" when together. Everyone regardless of type well resonate with the collective unconscious in some way because it's a critical aspect of the self.

The imagery of Ni is more allegorical than metaphorical. 

A metaphor is used to project the meaning of one word (or an aspect of it) onto another, hence a man is sly when called a fox, strong when called a bear, a cop when called a pig, etc.

An allegory by contrast, contains a deeper meaning within it's imagery or symbolism, conveyed in the form of narrative. Animal Farm was somehow about talking animals and the USSR at the same time. Avatar (2009) mirrored the Native America genocide via sci-fi weaponry and the wiping out a sub-species for it's resources. The Lord of Flies showed the clashing of societal paradigms and the trappings of fanatical thinking via desperate children scared of the world around them. 

The care with which those narratives were constructed, is the same care with which the internal images of Ni are constructed and explored. In some cases, the narrative becomes more infamous than the hidden allegories (ask the average man what Lord of the Flies is about and he'll reply that's about children killing each other.) I think the aforementioned is also the disposition of the artist variation, as compared to the crank. The crank begins to see aspects of the world and even himself within the narratives, prompting him to take action. 



charlie.elliot said:


> This post is amazing, but if you were seeking "clarify", (no offense) you might have done the opposite. I.e. you didn't exactly make it simple.


I think the reason Ni is so poorly understood is because of that though, because it's been so overwhelmingly simplified. I'd devour description after description, never quite satisfied and always of the inclination that something critical was missing.

Sometimes clarity means stretching your mind and not screaming in agony when you have to try comprehending something written above the Dr. Seuss level. 



> One big point though:* highly personalized.*
> 
> *highly. personalized. *
> 
> ...


That's part of why I pass on nearly every thread asking for Ni examples. Putting it into words serves to cheapen the vision I hold dear and if I can't convey it in it's original aesthetic and intensity, there's no point. I can sometimes pull the off the aforementioned with a bit of extended effort, but even then I'm inclined to share it with only other Ni-types - in the words of Jung "He keeps what he sees to himself...if he's not a fool."

In any case figuring out the relationship between Ni and the collective unconscious was really eye opening. It sufficed as an explanation for it's eerie accuracy.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I think I understand most of this. The part I quoted above I'm not sure about. I have been trying to understand the relation to Se and the shadow functions (Fe, Ti, Si, etc.) and that's the bit that I find more challenging. This explanation of Se sounds as though the inferior Se is a consequence of the Ni, which is within consciousness, essentially having a superiority complex and perceiving processing via the senses as "inferior". And, if I am interpreting correctly, the inferior Se then backfires and this results in "compulsion-neurosis", and those issues mentioned at the end (hypersensitive to sense organs, hyponchondriasis, etc.) But these things sound closer to Si to me which is our "devil" function. They are things I can relate to personally, as things I've struggled with, although I'm still not clear how inferior Se is involved. Inferior Si in an ENTP seems indistinguishable from these "symptoms."


I haven't fully digested that aspect of the description yet, but I do relate to the bit on hypochondria to a degree (?) I've gone to the doctor maybe 3 times over flu-like symptoms; stomach churning, aches, exhaustion, etc. only to be told that nothing was wrong with me.



> I definitely get the "fantasy" thing though. I think this is why we need Te. Personally I can't really rely on my ideas without finding some way to actualize them, otherwise for all I know they're just ideas in my head. Like the boogieman or something. And for all I know I could be delusional. (personally though I think I need to learn to trust myself more, haha.)


I absolutely relate although I operate under the assumption that what I've intuited is completely plausible and immediately begin working towards bending the current reality to my will. Contradiction does not prompt me to toss my intuition, rather, it triggers my Te to an even stronger degree, driving me to master my environment, learn the laws that govern it, and to ultimately subjugate it. I exist for the sole purpose of seeing my intuition out in the tangible reality, at the very least, in symbolic form.



Schweeeeks said:


> It sounds overwhelming. A black hole that consumes all sources of information and leaves you with a vague, cryptic answer.
> All the other functions seem more down to earth. More human.


This registered as a massive compliment but maybe I'm just weird.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Octavian said:


> This registered as a massive compliment but maybe I'm just weird.


Okay so I think I split the differences between Ne and Ni in my mind, maybe you can tell me if I'm off base.
Both Ns use the word "meanings". I think this is part of the confusion.

*
Ne* seems to care about the meanings (connotation: uses) of objects around them. I'm not necessarily saying all objects are tools. The object is taken for granted to be real and already complete. Ne's main "superpower" is basically finding patterns in many objects (especially seemingly farfetched ones). It's the real deal Big Picture intuitive function (same way Se is compared to Si), because the focus is MANY objects (objective ones, not subjective versions in one's mind).


*Ni*, the focus is the object more than making a pattern of many objects outside oneself. You see something, you get an impression, a vision (not really emotionally based, but "impression" has that connotation sometimes). Ni seeks to unfold the impression they have into many, many layers. The way Ne finds patterns in objects, Ni finds patterns between impressions of objects. Meanings (connotation: implications)?
In some ways, the "real world" is taken for granted. All it does is give you more stimuli to play this never-ending game with. Symbolism is a big draw for Ni, mainly because it generates that many (and meaningful to boot) impressions.
I don't really have a singular vision of anything. All of this "impression focusing" does usually end at a point if I want it to (converge into some grand epiphany or at least conclusion enough that I'm propelled to act in the real world). 

Anyway just curious. When I read Ni descriptions (the thread for example), Ni has its own internal world. I don't think of my world so different from the outside...I mean the outside _is_ where I'm getting my info, isn't it? It's more of a parallel universe.

Also if you have a strong enough Intuitive function (like Dominant Ni), you should have Ne as a backup. A strong Ni can eventually do what Ne does, it just takes a lot longer. Same vice versa.


I get worried when I see buzzwords like "peers behind the scenes", "fantasy", "epiphany, doesn't know how they got there". Ni seems too big for any one person. Breaking it down into laymen's terms as much as possible seems easier to digest.

Edit: If anyone is curious on a further Ne explanation, feel free to PM me. Wanted to keep that paragraph short for the purpose of this thread's topic.
I do like this line
"Ni dominants don't predict specific things so much as they notice the general molds that events are being funneled through."


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Schweeeeks said:


> Great description.
> The more I read about Ni, the more I don't want to identify with it anymore. It sounds overwhelming. *A black hole that consumes all sources of information and leaves you with a vague, cryptic answer.*
> All the other functions seem more down to earth. More human.


LOL you say, and describe it with archetypal imagery generated by Ni.



Octavian said:


> I think the reason Ni is so poorly understood is because of that though, because it's been so overwhelmingly simplified. I'd devour description after description, never quite satisfied and always of the inclination that something critical was missing.


I agree, though I also think there is an aspect of Ni that just makes it difficult to understand unless you yourself happened to wield it as your favored cognitive tool. I am kind of tired of people who only repeat how Ni is all about aha-experiences or reading into the future. I just feel it pisses the point of Ni. Similarly, a lot of authors write about how Ni is about imagery or imagination without actually explaining what this means. It doesn't mean that if you are capable of being a somewhat imaginative person it means you are Ni. That's not what Ni is but it's about whenever the Ni type experiences something, a mental image is generated that is sought out to be explored and this image relates to the archetypes expressed via the collective unconsciousness. Exactly that when seeing someone in a position of prayer you think "faith" or seeing a flock of birds taking off towards the sky you think "freedom" or when you hear someone expressing their frustrations, you think of them as a small child who was denied by their parents. Not so much the person in question as much as how the person seems to represent a subjective archetype idea of what frustration is like. That's Ni. Whether this is mystical or not I have no fucking clue.



Schweeeeks said:


> *
> Ne* seems to care about the meanings (connotation: uses) of objects around them. I'm not necessarily saying all objects are tools. The object is taken for granted to be real and already complete. Ne's main "superpower" is basically finding patterns in many objects (especially seemingly farfetched ones). It's the real deal Big Picture intuitive function (same way Se is compared to Si), because the focus is MANY objects (objective ones, not subjective versions in one's mind).
> "


The way I understand Ne though I never understood how Ne related to the collective unconsciousness though it should being intuition, is that Ne takes objects for granted being extroverted and thus concerned with the object. The primary difference between Ni and Ne is that whereas Ni will dismiss the nature of the object world and never quite take things at face value. Essentially, when we speak of the object world are we taking it for granted or not? We see the subjective quality of Ni and why it is introverted in the examples Jung used like the man who described vertigo as being shot by an arrow in the heart. Instead of focusing on the object world which would deal with focusing on the actual experiences of vertigo he detached from it instead being concerned with his subjective experience of vertigo. What it feels like to him, how it appears as. 

Ne would still take vertigo at face value calling it exactly that and referring to the sense of dizziness or whatever but instead Ne would choose to extrapolate to other objects that it sees sharing the the same experiential nature of vertigo via Si. Hence objective because Ne always takes the object at face value in this way. Vertigo will always be vertigo and not being shot in the heart by an arrow. So let's say the Ne type would thus seem to talk about heights and how one can get dizzy from being at a high altitude because it links to the same archetypal idea of "dizziness" but vertigo is taken at face value. I think this is why Ne-Si is so concerned with storytelling. Se can also be, but it's a very different kind of since each moment is taken in the same kind of face value way Ne does it. 

I do think the socionics dichotomy static is extremely useful in separating the Jungian introversion-extroversion dimension when it comes to perception in that the static functions see each moment as they are. The moment itself is separate from everything else and sacred. There is a certain defilement in the way Pi operates in that Pi wishes to change this objective nature of the object world being as it is into something far removed from it. It seeks to twist and turn in order to find a common pattern. This is true for all introversion btw, and not just Pi. Just that Ji looks for the archetypes of laws and rules whereas Pi looks for archetypes of experience. There is a certain idealistic character to judgement that Jung mentioned himself in that judgement seeks logical ideals of how things always ought to be that perception lacks.

As a final note, there's a certain painful... aspect of seeing how I cannot ever express myself in a way that doesn't at some level utilize Ni even when trying to describe Ni. I wouldn't necessarily call it ironic but it's one of those things interesting to observe in retrospect how consumed one's psyche can be seeing things a certain way.


----------

