# Ni vs Fi



## Softy (Feb 2, 2013)

I can't tell the difference. I 'understand' the difference, but I can't objectively figure out which one I use primarily. It's frustrating, like understanding a math problem on the board, then asking the board for the answer...

Does anyone have enough experience with the functions to help me discern between them using questions/answers and my response style? I figured this would be the place to come if anyone could. I won't waste time telling you about myself, but feel free to ask. 

Thanks


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Well I'm supposed to use both so I guess I'll try giving you an idea.

Ni is kinda a guess. You have several sense experiences and you try to see a pattern.
Or you have several pieces of objective data and you try to see the pattern.
Seeing the pattern is trying to imagine what the next step will be.
To do that you can use perspective shifts to see a problem from multiple angles.
The more data you have experienced the more "angles" are at your service guessing the next step so to speak.
Ni then is perceiving an idealized future based on how you expect the world to move forward from this point on.

As opposed to Ne who tries to perceive how an object could change based on several sense impressions of the object overlaid
on top of each other. Creating a static vs dynamic relationship almost.

Fi is about judgement, judgement about what is good based on how it impacts your inner harmony.
What breaks the inner harmony is bad and what keeps it is good.
I only have my own inner world to use as an example, but if I hit Johnny and he starts to cry, I didn't expect crying to happen,
I get startled and my inner harmony might get broken, from now on I will view hitting others as bad.

As opposed to Fe that measures how things impact the outer harmony.
Others say that the action of hitting Johnny was bad cause it disrupts the outer harmony.
Hitting is now viewed as bad.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Softy said:


> I can't tell the difference. I 'understand' the difference, but I can't objectively figure out which one I use primarily. It's frustrating, like understanding a math problem on the board, then asking the board for the answer...
> 
> Does anyone have enough experience with the functions to help me discern between them using questions/answers and my response style? I figured this would be the place to come if anyone could. I won't waste time telling you about myself, but feel free to ask.
> 
> Thanks


Your post reads of a slight perceiving stand point but I am not saying hey you got Ni.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I agree with what @fourtines periodically says about Fi being more similar to Si than to Ni. Fi and Si both have this subjective standard of "it's supposed to be that way and that's that" that they feel no compulsion to justify to anyone


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Here is how I see it:
Fi - Inner truth.
Ni - Universal truth.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

I have a test for you, there is no right or wrong answer.

Link together the fruit 'apple' with the concept of history, describing your thought process.

-

Ni is a perceiving function just like Se, Ne, and Si.

Fi is a judgement function like Te, Fe and Ti.

They are very different functions, Fi has more in common with Ti than Ni.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

firedell said:


> Here is how I see it:
> Fi - Inner truth.
> Ni - Universal truth.


Yea, that's kind of like how I subjectively see it as well - Ni just tends to penetrate to the origins of the metaphysical of something (I mean, I can just look at a physical setting, and realize it's underlying potential interconnectedness with something else better than I can zero in on how the details are inevitably connected (Se)), while Fi is more of a very definite sense of "I know where I stand and how this should be" without having ever really thought about it from an objective standpoint - it just "is" for me. I know what I want for myself without knowing exactly what it "objectively" is that I want - I know which variables are going to get me to that something though. I don't lead with Fi - it tends to be on the "behind-the-scenes" side for me - it's not as automatic as Ni (god, I can pretty much remember intuiting my way through the 4th grade play out of fear that I would sound too scripted/fake if I spoke rehearsed dialogue - it actually worked for the part I got super well! - no idea how I did that with one of the starring roles (and I do not act today, probably for the better in that case, LOL).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Intuition is intuition - at it's most primal, it's a hunch probably related as best as possible to an unfolding experience - at it's most advanced, it's an inner knowing of the underlying terrain of anything (other than present surface objects, which it can never penetrate without a context that can be intuitively navigated, just because that's where pure tangibility begins). Ni tends to be symbolic (on a very advanced level in the conscious sphere, to the point that a person who dominates with it will probably use it transparently and not even have to think about the symbolism - the symbolism will aid in envisioning something far wider in scope).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Sometimes, Ni hunches feel like going unconscious in a few...maybe seconds - I just never felt uncomfortable doing that for some reason (I mean, I definitely see why this would make many people leery and uncomfortable with intuition, but I dunno, I guess orientation to physical expectations always seems quite threatening to me in comparison - like you're going to lose control and not really know what you're doing). I don't even try, really (at least it's so first nature, it definitely doesn't feel like trying - it feels like a super immediate flash without any drama at all in the process). It's the realizations that tend to be dramatic for me (when something just materializes in relation to my hunches).


----------



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

Wait what? You can have Ni AND Fi. As in XNTJs and XSFPs. So to have them pitted against each other like you have in the title ("vs.") is a touch off.

Edit: Was that really obvious? I can be a bit literal at times.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Sure. Everyone has all the functions. It's just what gets played up by a person in terms of differentiation that makes a type.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

In a sort of archetypal way, I think Ni would be the village seer who can just predict volcanoes and whatnot by observing phenomena that arrive at some conclusion about the underlying dynamics of the conditions surrounding the state of the mountain, rather than off of empirical data collections. I've seen it in documentaries before, where this seer guy just comes out and "looks into" the data from this subjectively metaphysical perspective and somehow strikes gold as a result. Not calling myself a seer, but that process doesn't actually sound too unreasonable to me, as far out as it seems. Tangible data judgments sound scarier - like making a guess based on limited options what might happen - pick one-or-the-other, or it's Russian Roulette time to get shot if you pick the wrong one. X( For as amazing as this kind of intuition is, it just doesn't sound anywhere near as scary to make conclusions this way as landing in situations involving judgments from tangible organization where you don't really have a good sense of what to focus on in the case of a potentially nightmarish disaster - I can just relate to really wanting to "see around" what people are so quick to call "the inevitable" - that sounds so terrifying to me if you lack extraordinary experience in a remote region and are then expected to call the shots about it from superficial impressions - I mean, what if you miss something that may have some future relevance to protection - you might have only got part of the picture, but later, something else, maybe worse, creeps up on you. That's how I typologically come at this anyway.


----------



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Sure. Everyone has all the functions. It's just what gets played up by a person in terms of differentiation that makes a type.


I never understood this. Sike, I understand it I just disagree.  To me, it makes more sense to say everyone has THEIR TYPE'S functions and uses them in that order. Sure everyone has that potential for all the different functions- I mean we all have brains don't we? But as to which we actually can use and access depends on and is limited to our type. That's what typing is all about in my mind. 'Cause think about it other wise it wouldn't be orderly enough to give a person a definite type.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Softy said:


> I can't tell the difference. I 'understand' the difference, but I can't objectively figure out which one I use primarily. It's frustrating, like understanding a math problem on the board, then asking the board for the answer...
> 
> Does anyone have enough experience with the functions to help me discern between them using questions/answers and my response style? I figured this would be the place to come if anyone could. I won't waste time telling you about myself, but feel free to ask.
> 
> Thanks



Sounds like OP is looking for more anecdotal evidence about what it's like to experience Fi versus Ni, so I'm going to spare you from any further attempts at describing how each function has been defined (which often very different, depending on whom you ask). 



hornet said:


> Fi is about judgement, judgement about what is good based on how it impacts your inner harmony. What breaks the inner harmony is bad and what keeps it is good. I only have my own inner world to use as an example, but if I hit Johnny and he starts to cry, I didn't expect crying to happen, I get startled and my inner harmony might get broken, from now on I will view hitting others as bad.



I think @hornet did a great job here describing what it's like to be Fi-dom. This is almost exactly how I experience things. To be honest, I get hurt/offended easily, so, to me, it feels like a lot of my experiences with Fi related values come in the negative. As in, "That's wrong" or "People shouldn't do that" or "why are people mean?" Like when things are harmonious in the outer world, I'm fine. I'm usually quiet, content, playful, easy-going, agreeable, cooperative, etc. Then, when I see something like violence or discrimination or anything that just might be described as "mean" or "unfair" my stomach just sort of sinks. I'm feel vaguely repulsed or distrustful of the situation. This feeling tends to linger to, long after the situation. I spend a lot of time reflecting letting my assessments sink in. Usually I experience thoughts like, "How could you do that you person?", "What would I do if I was him" "You shouldn't do that because x, x" or often it's the other way around like, "it's not really that big of a deal, it's not hurting any one." This is all going on in my head. I rarely ask for external input, unless something's really bothering me.

I think I use Ne to imagine myself in other people's situations, in order to empathize with them. Or, I spend a lot of time fantasizing about an ideal situation that makes me feel "most like myself"--where my feelings are just free flowing and not boxed in by conventions like gender or money or whatever. I also try to draw connections between people's behaviors, different cultures, history, etc. I like to understand HUMANITY, as if there was some unifying answer to the meaning behind all human experiences. I feel like my intuition is not very time oriented. It just puts together a complete picture of an ideal situation and I learn my "values" from playing in my imagination, seeing how different situations make me feel. I don't think linearly, as in "this will happen, then this, then this, etc."

Since I don't identify as INJ, I can only guess what experiencing Ni is like. Since it's a Perception function, I suppose that it's more emotionally detached from situation--more observant, I guess, even in INFJs. As the situation is happening, I suppose INFJs are interpreting the situation metaphorically and "subjectively", that is, they see that a situation could mean many things and easily notice how people personal biases can affect how a situation is being interpreted. Apparently, Ni makes for a very flexible frame of mind; it doesn't need to judge ideas for their correctness or appropriateness right away. 

Researcher Dario Nardi has said that people who's best fit type is INFJ or INTJ often go into a state of "flow" in which all of the regions of their brains are working in perfect synchronization. If I recall correctly, these types often experience this "flow" when they envision specifically how something will pan out in the future. So with that being said, @JungyesMBTIno 's description about becoming unconscious for a few seconds doesn't really sound farfetched at all.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think Fi and Te are rather similar in that they both kind of view the self in relation to the world and the world in relation to the self in a more authentic way than Ti Fe (due to Fi being subjective evaluation from what actually exists from within and Te being objective thinking, concerned more with "laws of nature" or a pure understanding of the outside world), while Ti tends to turn what's purely conceptual at face value into theoretical problems in some way or another, while Fe imposes the concerns of an individual onto the outside world in relation to existing outlets for evaluation, which, no matter how objective they can become, still carry that more personal element that kind of interferes with seeing the world as is in a natural way (it often gets accused of being artificial). In a way, Ti is pretty natural, but not really in relation to natural facts as much as just a person's conceptual relationship to themself (how they conceptualize sense perceptions from their own experiences of them, rather than accounting for mass amounts of information that was "experienced" by others in some way . Fe is at its most natural around people, I would think (since it would really help qualify one's reactions to people more objectively than Fi - it's more open to definite reason than Fi, which has it's obvious benefits, such as in harmonious interactions and even in kind of giving others a clearer sense of how to relate to them and whatnot).


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> In a sort of archetypal way, I think Ni would be the village seer who can just predict volcanoes and whatnot by observing phenomena that arrive at some conclusion about the underlying dynamics of the conditions surrounding the state of the mountain, rather than off of empirical data collections. I've seen it in documentaries before, where this seer guy just comes out and "looks into" the data from this subjectively metaphysical perspective and somehow strikes gold as a result. Not calling myself a seer, but that process doesn't actually sound too unreasonable to me, as far out as it seems. Tangible data judgments sound scarier - like making a guess based on limited options what might happen - pick one-or-the-other, or it's Russian Roulette time to get shot if you pick the wrong one. X( For as amazing as this kind of intuition is, it just doesn't sound anywhere near as scary to make conclusions this way as landing in situations involving judgments from tangible organization where you don't really have a good sense of what to focus on in the case of a potentially nightmarish disaster -* I can just relate to really wanting to "see around" what people are so quick to call "the inevitable" - that sounds so terrifying to me if you lack extraordinary experience in a remote region and are then expected to call the shots about it from superficial impressions - I mean, what if you miss something that may have some future relevance to protection - you might have only got part of the picture, but later, something else, maybe worse, creeps up on you. That's how I typologically come at this anyway.*


this is something i can identify with. every time we would have lab (especially the chemistry labs, as they're much more complicated), i would be the person who reads and re-reads the directions, picking up the equipment and examining it when it's been mentioned in the directions. constantly trying to figure out how it would work out--from beginning to end--trying to do it in my head before i even start. 

now, this reminds me of the bold only because when anything is mentioned, i have to realize that what we're given is the earliest form of an idea. since we just got hold of the idea, it's murky, it hasn't had time to settle in and any direction from that idea could really mean anything--that is, until we can realize or find some outlying standard that curtails the possibilities and gives direction. 

i always felt like, "oh my god, i must be stupid if everyone is just jumping in and getting going--i mean, they don't even know anything about any of this and yet they always hit the ground running", but even though i'd be the last person to actually begin, i always only had to do the tests once (so i guess it pays off lol).


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

scorpion said:


> I never understood this. Sike, I understand it I just disagree.  To me, it makes more sense to say everyone has THEIR TYPE'S functions and uses them in that order. Sure everyone has that potential for all the different functions- I mean we all have brains don't we? But as to which we actually can use and access depends on and is limited to our type. That's what typing is all about in my mind. 'Cause think about it other wise it wouldn't be orderly enough to give a person a definite type.


This made me crack up - I actually agree (see below), it was just put in a funny way. 


What's missing in this investigation, to you OP, is an awareness of the complementation of functions within the hierarchy as well. In other words, you can't really separate single functions and say "this function does this or that on its own." Even when you read, for example, a description of each funtion for an INFJ and compare it to an INTJ, the role of each is described differently for each function - which would not be the case if each shared function was used the same way. While there are commonalities to be observed between two people of the same type who use, for example, the same dominant, that function is processed in a way that is intertwined with other functions that make those two types different. 

Example: INFJ and INTJ do not use Ni dominant the same way, making it possible to tell a difference. This drives at the post I quoted above. 

You would need to compare Ni/Se and Fi/Te to see whether you actually use all four, one set of the two with either Ne/Si or Fe/Ti at the expense of one of the pairs, or none of the pairs at all.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Eh, I doubt it's necessary for the Ni of either type to differ from each other - Ni's Ni's Ni. It goes back to what Jung said about "every individual is the exception to the rule." Frankly, it's just a matter of attitude of feeling and thinking that differentiates the two somewhat (not as much as MBTI makes out to be the case though imo), as well as what each is more "at home" playing up as a rational aim for action, thinking or feeling (so, thinking would be moreso the "call to action" for INTJs while feeling would be moreso the "call to action" for INFJs). They might display the other tendencies of the other one at times as well, but that would probably be the thing they generally try to avoid under ordinary circumstances (what's subjectively "ordinary" for them anyway). You probably can't distinguish the two types from appearance alone (I say this about type all the time - people are kidding themselves to think you can identify behaviors or worse, personas, and associate them with types) - you would probably have to look for differences in feeling between the two (INFJs would probably be more chameleon-like with feeling and frankly, unpredictable (since they use it toward stuff rooted in outer conditions that only the person would know what to look for), while INTJs would just be "feeling for the sake of it" kinds of people (Fi) who don't *determine* their evaluations in alignment with the conditions of the moment or people around them - their evaluations always stay within the same predictable range no matter where they are and what they're doing, if we are to assume they are fully differentiated Fi types).


----------



## deadassINTPgirl (Oct 25, 2018)

Bardo said:


> I have a test for you, there is no right or wrong answer.
> 
> Link together the fruit 'apple' with the concept of history, describing your thought process.
> 
> ...


Hey interesting question, when I first see apple with the concept of history my brain automatically jumped to Newton's theory of gravity and then I thought of the particles in an apple and remembered an analogy I read about if an electron is the size of an apple then the Earth is the size of an atom, and then I thought about the origin of universe and shit and right now while I'm typing to you the story of Adam and Eve came to mind lol. I think this is pretty Ne I have been trying to pin myself down on whether I'm Ne Ti or Ni Te for a long time it really seems to me that I use both and value both equally, since you can not arrive at a through well thought and practicle answer without all of them. So help me here hhh.


----------



## JennyJukes (Jun 29, 2012)

deadassINTPgirl said:


> Hey interesting question, when I first see apple with the concept of history my brain automatically jumped to Newton's theory of gravity and then I thought of the particles in an apple and remembered an analogy I read about if an electron is the size of an apple then the Earth is the size of an atom, and then I thought about the origin of universe and shit and right now while I'm typing to you the story of Adam and Eve came to mind lol. I think this is pretty Ne I have been trying to pin myself down on whether I'm Ne Ti or Ni Te for a long time it really seems to me that I use both and value both equally, since you can not arrive at a through well thought and practicle answer without all of them. So help me here hhh.


One second, I know this question was based on apples and history but hope it's helpful in understanding Si/Ne:

I'm just rambling here, hopefully someone who has more knowledge can have their input but I automatically actually thought of Si from your answer (not suggesting you're Si dom). Si strengthens on what it knows and Ne builds on what they know. Unfortunately that means people think Si is stuck in the same old place and Ne has more knowledge when all it really means is Ne starts at one place and ends up somewhere else. It has a wider knowledge about a broader subject. Si has a more focused and detailed knowledge within a specific subject. Both are good and both have their differing disadvantages.

Ne and Ni tend to go _forward - _Ne in particular. Ne, if asked this question, would start talking about the _potential _of an apple whereas Ni (I may need to be corrected on this) would see the apple as a metaphor for something else. I don't see Ni in your answer at all. 

This is how _my S_i dom brain works. It is not the smell/taste/feel of an apple. It's the links you make with it. For example, you thought of a theory, yes, so people can easily think "that's abstract! must be an N function". Nope, it's how you came to that thought. Si: Apple > what images/thoughts/feelings/experiences come up with that word > well, I link apples to gravity from the image of the falling apple on Newton! You may think you're "Ne" because you then jump from one image to the next but _that's _Si. You're going from one association to the next association _w__ithin the same association_. Si condenses inwards, Ne reaches outwards.


I may be completely wrong with this but I know Si gets such a bad reputation on PerC and the wider MBTI theories but Si is a great function too so I like to give my thoughts about my own Si so hopefully others can understand it better and hopefully come to realise it's more than "tradition" and rigidness. I could be totally wrong as you haven't actually gone into detail about how you linked the word/image of apple with a theory, you bounce from one thought to the next without actually going into detail so it's kind of difficult to guess.​


----------

