# A question for the Ni-dom, please?



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

How do you feel about this?
Would you say you have this 'autotelic' personality?

So, I was doing the usual reading on Ni, because clearly I'm intrigued. 
I'm intrigued because of how mystical it is. Alright, maybe mystical isn't the most appropriate word, but every description of it - by which I mean descriptions from self-typed Ni-doms - seems to portray it in a "mystical light". There was a particular topic in which self-typed users were talking about achieving a state of flow at their best, doing things and not recognizing it afterwards, not rationalizing etc. So it's... kind of... mystical, in that sense? There's also the fact that it's usually tied to religion and whatnot, but let's not go into that.
All of that reminded me of the concept of "flow" according to *casually pastes* Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Of course he puts it as something universal, but I read somewhere else that Ni-doms would be more likely to achieve this state, which would mean the autotelic... whatever... because that's the common Ni brain pattern, in which every part is active simultaneously at a low rate... whatever, whatever... sorry, too lazy to explain properly. (I would link to the other topic... but where's the topic again?...) Yeah, forget it.

If you think that these are related, what makes an universally desired experience different from a function preference?
There's something else that I want to ask, but I'll leave it at that for now.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

My initial Ni-Ti response would be that this "flow" is really the essence of the overall attitude of every individual


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

myjazz said:


> My initial Ni-Ti response would be that this "flow" is really the essence of the overall attitude of every individual


I agree that everyone is part of a flow, but I guess most people aren't usually "aware" of that and would have to resort to meditation or something to feel it more often. It doesn't come naturally, at least not often, because of emotional baggage and all. For giving an answer like that, would you say you're more in touch with this flow?


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@Chell
Yeah, I would say so. I would need to look more into it to and rip it apart before I would say yes associate me with "this".
Focus is something I greatly trained and developed throughout my life in the bases of this "flow" as they put it I would say, Yes.
Before you showed me the link to say this is what "flow" is according to so and so, I would automatically say and agree with being more natural Flow.

Of course not saying that I was born with it either but was a process like so many other things in life.


What about you?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Not mystical at all - more like, "did I just do that?"  It might feel empowering that I just carried out something almost instinctually, but it's not special and mystical - it's more like "fight or flight" being thwarted. I used to think everyone did that - kind of like mentally prepping for the impact of a performance, although you don't quite know what it's going to be that you'll have to perform. Frankly, I have no idea if most of this has anything to do with intuition, other than just kind of acting from hunches. I think I do sometimes intuit flows, but it's just quite instinctual for me - it feels like nothing, really, other than a mental "zone."


----------



## Konigsberg (May 10, 2012)

Ah, my mind is never at one single place so I can't say I identify with the 'flow'. The possibilities are endless, even if I try to focus on one thought, my mind might decide to take another route. I mostly move my ideas towards a center or a general principle. I love finding general principles on things, it's even more lovely because I never truly reach the center. 

I do tend to lose track of my physical surroundings. It's more interesting inside my head either way.


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

myjazz said:


> @_Chell_
> Yeah, I would say so. I would need to look more into it to and rip it apart before I would say yes associate me with "this".
> Focus is something I greatly trained and developed throughout my life in the bases of this "flow" as they put it I would say, Yes.
> Before you showed me the link to say this is what "flow" is according to so and so, I would automatically say and agree with being more natural Flow.
> ...


Hmm, I understand then.  Thanks, really!

As for me, I wasn't like that, but lately I've been experiencing this feeling more and more, so I was curious.
@JungyesMBTIno and @Konigsberg as well! Haha, even if you say it's different, you do make it sound similar, in the sense of not analyzing much and just letting your thoughts flow according to hunches, at least I think so.  Anyway, I think I understand it a bit better now, thank you!


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

So, it's when you are completely focused on a task but are not stressed by it. I get that a lot in games. It's weird because I remember the times when I'm not like this more than the times I am.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

I'm an 'S' but I think I've experienced it before. With me it's physical things like reflexes. Basicly my reflexes will become 10 x as sharp and it will sync more with my hearing and sight. Very handy in sports ^.^


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

13 others said:


> I'm an 'S' but I think I've experienced it before. With me it's physical things like reflexes. Basicly my reflexes will become 10 x as sharp and it will sync more with my hearing and sight. Very handy in sports ^.^


This took a lot of training on my behalf but it is awesome and was well worth it. Even now though for the most I am still Se oblivious more times than so, what you mentioned above I really have to focus in order to so...I learned to pinpoint my focus good and kinda quick though 

After whipping my Ni into shape prior that part was kinda easy


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Whew, I _wish _I had an "autotelic" personality, it sounds amazing. From what I'm reading, however, it almost seems closer to what I stereotype as Se, not Ni - in fact, it seems to be nearer to the exact _opposite _experience I have with Ni, at least as a dominant.

Why? Primarily, the introspection. Perhaps introspection is good in moderation and at specific times, but I certainly become lost in self-consciousness - and with Ni, a form that doesn't always allude to reality. There's always something "missing" - some abstract, obscure reason to be dissatisfied in the present, even if that episode is to become a favorable memory later. It's maddening. True stimulation must be spontaneous for me - I cannot create it myself. And life becomes this arid, ever shifting climate in which the Ni dominant is nothing but nomadic, constantly in search for the drop of cool water that must inevitably be consumed and found again somewhere else. 

The thing is though, only the thirsty best know water, and as soon as I've experienced something in an "autotelic" way, I expect more. This is why Se is _so _important to Ni. Without direct, in-the-present experience, there is no way to supplement the function when it is rigorous. THIS - not Fi or Ti - is the cause of "Ni 'loops.'" The function's self-consciousness has nothing to quelch upon but itself, and the Ni dom becomes disoriented and disengaged. 

So long explanation short, no, I don't think autotelic experience is like Ni. Maybe it's different for ENTJ and ENFJ, but for Ni dominants, that kind of experience is what is _necessary to find_ rather than one that comes as a latent quality of the function.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

I started a thread about dario nardi and his amazing neuroscience work into type, I have a book of his and I relayed some of the information. He does mention what puts some of the types into flow, they have different triggers.

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/128709-nueroscience-personality-dario-nardi.html

Everyone can use flow. Everyone who becomes an expert at something, dancing, singing, whatever, will get into flow when doing the practiced task. Even visualising dancing will put someone into flow if they have been a dancer for years.

It appears on an EEG machine as a 'blue zen brain', where every area activates at once at low power.

Ni doms achieve flow for up to 10 minutes in one go. It might appear when an Ni dom is asked a question, thinks about the future or approaches a novel, unfamiliar problem. This is in stark contrast to the usual entering of flow, it is an Ni dominants first order of business.

Other types have unusual flow based skills specific to their type.

INFPs, even though they have no Ni in their function order, can achieve a flow state for extended periods, even up to 10 minutes, when listening intently to someone. This is their special flow skill.

Se doms, although they have Ni as their smallest function, can achieve flow for extended periods in a crisis situation. I imagine this would apply to sports also.


Nakamura and Csíkszentmihályi identify the following six factors as encompassing an experience of flow. [SUP][3][/SUP]


_intense and focused concentration_ on the present moment 
_merging of action and awareness_ 
a _loss of reflective self-consciousness_ 
a sense of personal _control_ or agency over the situation or activity 
a _distortion of temporal experience_, one's subjective experience of time is altered 
experience of the activity as _intrinsically rewarding_, also referred to as _autotelic experience_ 
 Those aspects can appear independently of each other, but only in combination they constitute a so-called _flow experience_.

I would say that point 1 is the main difference between Ni and normal flow. Ni doms can get into flow for long periods of time when planning for and predicting future events.

Point 2 is another big difference, no action or awareness is needed. If anything I spend most of my time in a physically separated haze that makes me look quite stupid. I've worked in a couple of really easy jobs, the kind anyone of any age can get, and been actually bad at them.

I would say the majority of my 'flow' use is based around these two details, making it actually Ni use. Flow wired up as an introverted perception function.
I would even go far as to say that I naturally avoid developing skills to the point of them causing me to use flow in the normal sense.

Point 6 resonates with me a lot.


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

I agree with @LXPilot and @Bardo I just have a few things to add to clarify to the OP. 

The description given feels like a Se flow state. It is too present-focused, here-and-now, to be Ni. Ni is future-oriented, what *will* happen. I have very brief Se moments from time to time, and they feel awesome, but it's not Ni. 

Perhaps the flow states that the people you read about were describing is what happens when Ni users have turned off judgement and are simply perceiving their own unconscious. It feels uncontrollable because it is a perception thing, irrational, and quite outside the realm of language. 

From Dario Nardi's work, it appears that the Ni "flow state" happens when trying to understand/solve a problem and they are using their entire brain to "see all sides of the problem at once." In essence, Ni users pull experiences and thoughts from every possible way of understanding everything to work towards a solution to the problem. This means applying all possible ways of looking at something to understand it as completely as possible, but not in a time-based or linear method like how a judging dom might, it's holisitic and completely interlocked. Sometimes the solution at the end seems to "come from nowhere" but really it is from converging, overlapping, a whole bunch of different perspectives all at once to find THE answer. 

Ne users, on the other hand, go into a state of flow when *performing*, but when they are using Ne they use their whole brains, but not at the same time or the same strength. Their brains light up like dancing christmas tree lights, you can literally see ideas bouncing around in their head and new ideas and meanings being formed by using different parts of their brain to understand the given input.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Hmm I'm not sure if this counts, but there are some moments I do solely concentrate on some task in a very intense way, almost ignoring the outside world while being very aware/conscious of what I'm doing, and enjoy doing it and forget about time. Like drawing, getting inspired by listening to music (I'm very acoustic sensible) and letting the emotions flow as I follow the melody; and solving certain programming situation at work (I'm a programmer). Do these count?? It can be so focused and intense that I'm not sure if it gives some scary impression.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

The weird thing about hunches as well is that you're not really even "stuck in your head" necessarily (some might be, but that probably comes down to how they choose to channel their intuition to begin with, let alone, a lot of individual factors that have little to nothing to do with type) - being stuck in your head sounds like exactly what it is, really. You might be very aware of the factors outside of you, but you have a way of kind of mentally breezing through them as if they don't really have any kind of impact on the mental connections you make. So, this might make the intuitive kind of feel like they're not really acting in accord with what's actually there - sort of just out of touch with present factors - not really getting stimulated or pleasure out of what they would expect to by the normalcy of the received impact of it based on obvious sensory appearances (just kind of unconventional when it comes to reality values - distrust of the obvious). That's the area that they are mildly dissociated from - sensation (not always, but to engage sensation in these types is kind of an all-or-nothing deal (just kind of raw and unadapted, basically) - they often just have to get sick of themselves and their thoughts (due to being negatively subjective) in order to let the stimulation of present experience have an authentic impact on how they direct their actions (only they will really know how this works for them - it can't really be stereotyped). These episodes can certainly come up plenty with them, but it's just, emotionally speaking, a black-and-white source of rationalization contention for them (hence is the case of all inferior functions). People blow the functions out-of-proportion into these grand mental states, when in fact, they are just subtle dissociations of consciousness - everyone has all four functions, it's just how they are compartmentalized in consciousness that constitutes type (and it's not that noticeable to the outside world - for instance, you may get F doms who come off, stereotypically speaking, like thinkers - that's not type, btw, just people's ignorant stereotypes of it that feelers speak in mushy platitudes and whatnot). Really not a big deal in-and-of-itself (how it impacts psychology is another matter that Jung tackled and created an original theory about).


----------



## Worth Lessemo (Feb 20, 2012)

@Chell 

I have this. I'm somewhat off the charts. I also have a major mental illness that I must manage, which I think draws on the same lotus of control. 

I think everyone is capable of creating a locus of intuitive control, but to say its an autotellic trait I think the locus would need to be somewhat complex and extensive. Where to draw the line is somewhat vague. I think most people on these forums haven't developed Ni very well, maybe enough to score N on a personality test but that's about it. 

My foster mother was also Autotelic, or at least had the Artistic Temperment. I don't know her type though, Probably INxx. She is an Art Director, so I can see how I was obviously encouraged to explore and work with psychological flow. Some of that caused more problems than it probably should have though.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't know. I think I would need someone to monitor my brain, considering that I can't exactly check if I was in a state of flow if I'm not supposed to be focusing on myself while fully immersed.

I think I do it to some degree, but I thought a lot of people did. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

I will say this: I'm the opposite of good at multitasking. I get most efficient and feel the most connected when I can be singularly focused on one task at a time. It's also easy for me to lose that singular focus, though.

Dario Nardi said something about this in his google talk. I don't think it was personality specific - something about the brain thing being full blue when people were in a state of flow.


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

Aw, thanks a bunch to all of you, really!  I have a few questions because I'm insatiable
@LXPilot
Hmm, I see what you mean! (...I wish I had an autotelic personality too.) Would you say that someone with a well-developed Ni wouldn't normally experience these loops? Assuming that the form would make sense; The issue would be that it is too detached from reality.
@Bardo
Wow, thanks a lot for such a well thought out comment, really! I can see now what you mean now when you say flow isn't quite like Ni, but still have a lot of things in common.
But if you and @luemb (and @LXPilot and possibly @JungyesMBTIno as well) agree that what is lacking are basically the more "Se" features, theoretically speaking, would you say that for Ni-doms the introverted intuition differs from flow simply because there is an avoidance of these features, being the inferior function and all? I mean, that a flow-like state would be more easily achieved (autotelic personality or what have you) if one managed to develop both Ni and Se?
@Worth Lessemo 
I understand. I see what you mean, haha. May I ask what you mean by complex and extensive? Would you say then that from your experience its nature is essentially the same and it's about a threshold?
Yeah, though it goes for every person/function to some extent, I can see how Ni is a particularly hard one to develop (and rely on) since it's not really encouraged in most settings, and without some guidance it could end up pretty disconnected from consensus reality... in that case I agree with @JungyesMBTIno, it's not about developing Ni, but developing Ni in detriment of other functions.
@LostFavor
I guess it's something you can only 'look' at afterwards and go, oh, I think that's what happened. But yeah, thinking about it now, since both aren't really judgmental states, and one doesn't normally perceive the dominant function and all, I guess you have a point in that it's hard to say how it compares.  And yeah, that's what I was thinking about when I asked, actually! The similarity on the EEG patterns, it's pretty intriguing.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

Chell said:


> @_Bardo_
> Wow, thanks a lot for such a well thought out comment, really! I can see now what you mean now when you say flow isn't quite like Ni, but still have a lot of things in common.
> But if you and @_luemb_ (and @_LXPilot_ and possibly @_JungyesMBTIno_ as well) agree that what is lacking are basically the more "Se" features, theoretically speaking, would you say that for Ni-doms the introverted intuition differs from flow simply because there is an avoidance of these features, being the inferior function and all? I mean, that a flow-like state would be more easily achieved (autotelic personality or what have you) if one managed to develop both Ni and Se?


Well that's an interesting one, In my opinion you can't develop individual functions. In terms of development your whole mind, personality and brain structure changes, it's one of those places where our understanding and vocabulary regarding type starts to get shady. I'd say you can develop skills that are a certain way in their nature but it wouldn't develop a function. To have a function, to be of a certain type, describes not only the brain activity but also someones natural inclination towards the function and it's potential to influence their character in a profound way. The function order and the way they mesh together is complex and I don't think it's possible to isolate in order to develop.

Ultimately I think a genuine flow state, a present moment based flow state, is as hard for Ni's to develop as anyone else if not harder. 
A true flow state would require all the 100's of hours of practice at a task that it normally would.

I think that *Ni* can be applied to* physical action* in a principled way that is rooted in the intellectual, but is still not genuine flow.
As if point 2 - _merging of action and awareness_ - is an option that can be present during physical tasks but point 1 - _intense and focused concentration_ on the present moment, is still very much missing. 


I'll give you some examples.

Playing an instrument - the physical action is governed by music theory and memorized patterns, the mental side, so the physical action is like an extension of the Ni state. 
I used to get really into playing the guitar, I learned a lot of stuff quite quickly, tied concepts together easily and was very exited by it but but I was very messy for a long time, lots of fluffed notes, lots of mess. I'd speed through stuff without properly etching the skill into my brain, I had all this complicated technique but it wouldn't be clean enough for someone else to listen to a lot of the time. 
So that to me is Ni with point 2, still no point 1.

Laser tag games, I used to get top score most of the time. I'd think about where people would end up after I saw them run in a particular direction and how I could head them off or stalk them. I'd do sneaky things like that, it was as much about visualizing the field of play and coming up with ideas as it was actually doing something physical. This definitely didn't make me sense alert, aiming accurate etc. I was as much in my mental system for playing as I was in the here and now. So there's that missing point 1. 

In fact I think the smoke, darkness, bright lasers and electronic noises helped to create a surreal environment that was beneficial to my Ni as it appears slightly detached from normal reality and so it helped to merge the experience with my imaginations.

I think that merging of action and awareness from point 2 is something that can be thought of as spreading down from the brain into the body, but no further. And that is only when doing something physical. The timelessness is still there even when this happens, the focus on principles and concepts. It's not truly physical, it's easy to bring about like normal Ni, it is basically normal Ni. I still have the thing where it's possible for me not to notice a dancing clown, my house being on fire etc.

In a genuine flow I imagine it would start at the skin and go outwards into the environment, and of course it would have the point 1 time orientation.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think perhaps a "flow" might be detected moreso through inferior Se in these types - it kind of puts mental pressue on them to focus directly on factors related to the present moment, which they repress, so as a result, there's a kind of automatic flow of thoughts that almost influences their actions more than what's in front of them, related to them, etc., which can, frankly, only be detected when one is trying to relate themselves to the present reality (think of getting car sick and finallly realizing it, which is a stretch, but gets the point across - you're mind isn't experienced tangibly, so you can't detect a flow without an experiential concept of one, which would come from sensation lore). I'll say it again - to say these types are "stuck in their heads" would be the stereotypically wrong way to look at it - since they have a flat inferior sensation function, they may, frankly, be very well more aware of present banalities than someone with a more advanced Se - what's just kind of rough with them would be the aesthetic side of their sensation (communicating the details for them might just look quite primitive - sort of like, "I bumped into this corner that was sharp enough to put a small indention in my skin" - overly detailed or often even reflecting exaggerated accounts and distortions of the actual event that have something of an intuitive flavor to them, although can't really be made compatible with intuition well either, so they might sound like the person just sees very strange things (not true though, it's just bad rationalization on their part) - they can repress awareness of the present details if they want, but thing is, that's not a bad thing for them, because intuition compensates anyway - that's the point of them having intuition, because they don't get much out of the details willfully - not easily anyway (just not their concern, really - not always the case, either, before someone takes this as gospel). This stuff about being the "absent minded professor" as an Ni dom is, realistically, likely not even type specific - it's just that these types will surely more likely gravitate to that kind of thing, but that doesn't have to be the case (and frankly, these types aren't truly absent-minded - I can't see how someone with a really strong orientation toward very objective sensation would be absent-minded - they have the kind of sensation that chains them to this rather flat, "knock-on-wood" reality - what they see is uber empirical - they might look into reality a ton, precisely because the aesthetic side of it doesn't get in the way of clear intuitive visions - it complements them - what of it doesn't complement them will get repressed - not that it couldn't, but when the ego has no reason, energy won't be spent on the potential hinderances...yet). If there's one type that Jung pretty much did consider to be the classic absent-minded professors, it would be Ne doms (those who almost completely repress objective sensation in favor of an almost overly subjective, removed from reality sensation). Inferior Se types are just the people who might look kind of primitive with practical matters (e.g. basic, animalistic, etc.).


----------



## discoriver (Jan 9, 2013)

I'm actually reading a book at the moment that touches on the idea of flow (Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman).


The author shows through his work and studies that engaging in effortful thinking requires self-control to keep our attention from wandering. This self-control requires constant willpower and effort all on its own.


Flow happens when we are able to engage in effortful thinking (cognitive work) without the need for self-control. 


The author says, "Flow neatly separates the two forms of effort: concentration on the task and the deliberate control of attention." So flow removes the need for us to expend effort on maintaining our attention; there is no exertion of self-control, thereby freeing resources to be directed to the task at hand.


Flow is just "effortless attending."


I don't think this in any way refutes the six required factors listed on the wikipedia page for flow. I also don't think this requires a certain set of cognitive functions. After all, anyone can learn to meditate. And anyone can find their own special task or form of "cognitive work" that they could perhaps focus on without needing to expend effort to force attention to.


While Dario Nardi's work is very interesting and the solid light blue might indeed indicate flow, I highly doubt the only way flow is ever experienced is when our entire brains are working. That seems very inefficient. If we can effortlessly attend to a task that requires fewer brain regions, why is that not flow too?


I for one have experienced flow lasting for up to 2 hours at a time. Specifically this has happened while I was writing and also occasionally when I would do long calculus homework assignments back in college. Time would dilate and I would be completely focused on the task at hand. Only when it was over would I realize, I had to pee, I'm hungry, and 2 hours have passed in what felt like 5 minutes. Dario's blue states didn't last that long. Of course, his subjects performed many different tasks in a 3 hour window.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Chell said:


> Would you say you have this 'autotelic' personality?


On the whole yes. 
But I'm not sure it's directly type related. It depends on whether someone can find an activity that challenges them just about enough without being too difficult. For some people that can be studying but for others it might be rock-climbing.


----------



## Worth Lessemo (Feb 20, 2012)

Chell said:


> @_Worth Lessemo_
> I understand. I see what you mean, haha. May I ask what you mean by complex and extensive? Would you say then that from your experience its nature is essentially the same and it's about a threshold?
> Yeah, though it goes for every person/function to some extent, I can see how Ni is a particularly hard one to develop (and rely on) since it's not really encouraged in most settings, and without some guidance it could end up pretty disconnected from consensus reality... in that case I agree with


Your reply sounds so Asian, I love it. 

Well the Ni as a lotus of control is perhaps different than Ni as an extent or reach of intuition. I think they are related. The more you can control your Ni, it's going to mean you can project your Ni further or with more or less mindfulness be able to project Ni into more complex forms. Realizing most people are capable of some control and projection of intuition is one thing, but with regard to the autotelic personality it makes sense for there to be some marker or measurement of that locus. 

I imagine the common uses of an intuitive locus of control would be establishing intuitive boundaries, expectations, and gauges in regard to managing mental health issues; managing one's own mind as an example of developing Ni. 

A more practical example of a complex Ni would be closing your eyes and knowing where and what people-important-to-you are doing regardless of how far away they are. Your brain almost needs to establish an intuitive form of simulation of someone else's mind for example, and you take guesses at it from afar based on also simulating their environment. Other times it's more like an overlay or extra layer of intuitive form which may even become easier with practice, it sits as operating with the rest of cognition unconsciously. 

There are so many examples of strong Ni. 

There can be bad-strong Ni though too. Strength and extent of control of Ni doesn't need to equal good. 

I was reading a study on physical reactions and intuitive markers of low self esteem. They found that people who (developed Ni) had intuitive forms of evaluation in their minds with pertained to non-task related content ended up with a strong correlation of having extremely low self esteem. Sometimes strongly formed abstract intuitions that sit within the mind can act as obstructions or be detrimental to relating the external world. Another example is just plain psychosis in general (although that could occur with other functions too.)


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

@_Bardo_ - Yes, that's why I said theoretically really. If it were so simple, I guess people wouldn't be searching for things all their lives, haha. But thanks for playing along, and once again giving such an insightful answer. 

@_JungyesMBTIno_ - Oh... I see what you mean but I'm afraid that even now I still don't really 'get' how inferior function works as opposed to shadow functions, sorry. Still, you do agree that it would begin with inferior Se.
Do you and @_Bardo_ think it could be more along the lines of using all your (non-Ji at least?) functions on a certain activity, then, or that flow can't be thought of in terms of cognitive functions at all?

@_discoriver_ - Thanks! Yes, I think this makes more sense, actually. Thinking of flow as purely effortless attending, that is. I guess this raises more questions on why the blue brain patterns.

@_Worth Lessemo_ - LOL. It... probably does. Your reply is totally different, but it entertains me. I mean, this is what I was talking about. ..I want to think about it and give a coherent answer but I'm sleepy and I feel like I can't do it now. I'll come later, but thanks really.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Just cause majority of the time one's mind is sporadic for whatever reason that may be, Ni-Ti-Ne or whatever excuse or cause.
Doesn't mean their is never moments of clarity since this is a Cognitive section and question about Ni. If Ni never comes to a point of clarity or Flow than how is Ni in the slightest bit beneficial. Then why has such person at some point valued "Ni" to have it as a Dom function? 
Same goes with any Function


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

@_myjazz_ - ..Sorry, I don't... get what you're saying? I never implied that Ni users might have a harder time achieving flow or whatever, it was more like the opposite actually. The traits of this "autotelic personality" initially struck me as those of someone with a well-developed Ni is all. But as has been pointed before, that is also an stereotype. And of course anybody can achieve moments of clarity. ...sorry, I do feel like I failed to get what you mean.

@_Worth Lessemo_, I was thinking about your post. I guess I can't really imagine the extent of this Ni that acts upon itself, (..or maybe I'd rather not go there) but it did answer my question nicely, so thanks really.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Ni would just be an ego-defense function, not a person's wild, unbridled imagination, so the only influence it would have on one's relationship to reality would be directly dependent on what it is that the person is trying to convince themselves with it about to begin with - this might create a person who distrusts stuff at face value for what it represents, because their intuition has a way of working around this to the person's advantage - the only reason these types repress sensation, to Jung, was because it gets in the way of intuition - it's not really that big a deal - an autoletic (sp?) personality is probably just that, an autoletic personality - probably not related to the person's intuition at all (why would someone defend themselves that way is the REAL question...they wouldn't, that's not self defense, because there's no rationale behind it). The mystical mumbo-jumbo about these types is utter nonsense.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@Chell
I didn't mean it that way


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Ni would just be an ego-defense function, not a person's wild, unbridled imagination, so the only influence it would have on one's relationship to reality would be directly dependent on what it is that the person is trying to convince themselves with it about to begin with - this might create a person who distrusts stuff at face value for what it represents, because their intuition has a way of working around this to the person's advantage - the only reason these types repress sensation, to Jung, was because it gets in the way of intuition - it's not really that big a deal - an autoletic (sp?) personality is probably just that, an autoletic personality - probably not related to the person's intuition at all (why would someone defend themselves that way is the REAL question...they wouldn't, that's not self defense, because there's no rationale behind it). The mystical mumbo-jumbo about these types is utter nonsense.


Only person who seems to get defensive about Mystical and Ni-ego-defense is you...

Sorry had to point that out..by the way who is talking about mystical anyway?


With what you said Se is also the ego-defense persona of said person, of Se dom


Carry on though I do like reading your post for the majority


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I can relate to flow when I'm deeply ingrained in the analysis of a subject that intrigues me, especially by trying to connect and expand on the idea itself. Then again, I'm a 5, I'm not sure flow is to me like it is to everyone else as I can also experience flow when I'm playing an intense video game where I must really do my best to win. 

Flow to me is more like super-focus. I'm deeply connected and aware of what's going on around me but I'm not really here at all, because my mind is focused on the future, devising plans and strategies of how to proceed. I have never reflected on whether this is Ni or not, but it's most definitely a feeling of flow.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

Chell said:


> Do you and @_Bardo_ think it could be more along the lines of using all your (non-Ji at least?) functions on a certain activity, then, or that flow can't be thought of in terms of cognitive functions at all?


I don't think flow can be thought of in terms of cognitive functions. 

I think that Ni is flow with a detail or two changed so that it can be wired up as a P function.

As an INFP you have no Ni, but apparently can achieve flow for extended periods when listening to someone. 
Can you recall doing this, perhaps when someone has told you a tragic or dramatic chapter in their lives? 

If this is flow then I would imagine it feels like being part of that person and fully understanding their perspective as it is in the moment.

This would in contrast to my Ni, which when piecing together things someone has said or their actions considers them in an abstract and detached sense. Predicting the routes being taken by negative behavior patterns, seeing what mindset is symbolized by someones words, that sort of thing.


Thanks for sifting through I-NJ dinosaur posts this whole thread :frustrating: I find it difficult and I am one.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I can relate to flow when I'm deeply ingrained in the analysis of a subject that intrigues me, especially by trying to connect and expand on the idea itself. Then again, I'm a 5, I'm not sure flow is to me like it is to everyone else as I can also experience flow when I'm playing an intense video game where I must really do my best to win.
> 
> Flow to me is more like super-focus. I'm deeply connected and aware of what's going on around me but I'm not really here at all, because my mind is focused on the future, devising plans and strategies of how to proceed. I have never reflected on whether this is Ni or not, but it's most definitely a feeling of flow.


That might just be GREEN GEARtm. Ti types can show a green whole brained state in specific situations, I'd like to know more about that. According to Nardi it happens when Ti types shut out raw emotion in order to assess a new activity, person or argue.

Ti types also have RED GEARtm which is the 4 favorite Ti regions joining with the front 2 regions at max power to look logically at things from different angles quickly.

INTPs obviously also have RAINBOW GEARtm which is the Ne brainstorm state and ISTPs have ZEN GEARtm which is the Ni flow like state.

Get all this and more when you purchase your ALAN GREENSPAN ACTION FIGURE.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

myjazz said:


> Only person who seems to get defensive about Mystical and Ni-ego-defense is you...
> 
> Sorry had to point that out..by the way who is talking about mystical anyway?
> 
> ...


Well, the topic the OP is bringing up is more-or-less mystical in nature, so I think that needs addressed, because the OP seems to be under this as a misconception about Ni (let alone, she extends it to personality in a broad sense as well, which is probably pushing it a bit too far). I mean, if you read past the first section of the Wikipedia article, it becomes clear that this has nothing to do th rationalization toward the realm of possibility, which would be what intuition manifests from, basically. I should have explained it more rather than snapping, but I think there's a lot of talking past each other going on here in this thread from people, just because most people are clearly operating on different assumptions about the functions, and not anything universally related to the functions (Beebe, Jung, etc. - no clear standpoints). I mean, if you read the description of autotelic personality on Wikipedia, it becomes apparent quite quickly that this is a very shaky assumption to make about Ni, for the following reasons:

1. Article states that an autotelic personality may have the following characteristics: curiosity (not type related), persistence (not type related), low self-centeredness (DEFINITELY not type related - type is about everyone's giant egos anyway, lol), a high rate of performing activities for intrinsic reasons only (just sounds like someone who keeps to themselves a lot - not type related - actually, extraverts are more notorious for keeping their personal motives to themselves than introverts - they tend to snap at encrochments upon their personal life - I'm not the first person here to mention this either)

2. The article also states that an autotelic personality " have a greater preference for "high-action-opportunity, high-skills situations that stimulate them and encourage growth" - this does not sound like an inferior sensation type to me, especially the "high-action situations" bit (that would be the weakness of these types - rough adaptation to present action - it would probably be the thing that these types try to unconsciously avoid having to deal with as much as possible). The last bit can be anyone who thrives from a challenge - not type-related.

3. The word autotelic means "having a purpose in and not apart from itself" - This, in terms of personality, would translate to someone who probably more-or-less competes with him/herself and is stimulated by this. The flow phenomenon is fairly mystical the way it's described

4. This clearly has nothing to do with type: Wikipedia (Flow):


> Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi[SUP][2][/SUP] describes people who are internally driven, and as such may exhibit a sense of purpose and curiosity, as autotelic. This determination is an exclusive difference from being externally driven, where things such as comfort, money, power, or fame are the motivating force.
> "An autotelic person needs few material possessions and little entertainment, comfort, power, or fame because so much of what he or she does is already rewarding. Because such persons experience flow in work, in family life, when interacting with people, when eating, even when alone with nothing to do, they are less dependent on the external rewards that keep others motivated to go on with a life composed of routines. They are more autonomous and independent because they cannot be as easily manipulated with threats or rewards from the outside. At the same time, they are more involved with everything around them because they are fully immersed in the current of life."[SUP][3][/SUP]


Sounds like someone who's just content with themselves, to say the least.

5. The "History" part of the article suggests that this concept has it's root in rather mystical ideas. Anything that refers to ideas like "states of mind" is fundamentally mystical - the concept of "states of mind" is mystical - not that this makes these ideas unadaptable to scientific study, but comparing this to intuition would be to cast a mystical light onto intuition, which is wrong, basically (I mean, yes, society projects mysticism and such onto ideas of what intuition is (BS nonsense that probably comes from backwoods superstition and whanot of yesteryear), but actual scientific and theoretical conclusions about intuition do not consider it mystical, since after all, it can be justified in theory and with data).

6. Not focusing on the stuff around you would not really be a type thing - a flow is generally another way of saying that someone has "zoned out," but just productively. This can happen to anyone engrossed in a task - to attribute this to intuitives would be silly because this would imply that other types cannot become engrossed in anything, especially in a self-centered way, which common sense obviously throws on it's head. Sensation doms do not focus on stuff around them for no reason - they can block out stuff that they don't care about like anyone else (I literally know some who have confessed to being able to do this).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Now, if someone were to accept that intuition is dervied from the supernatural, then having a discussion about it scientifically is impossible (and that would be to assume that dominant intuitives would possess supernatural powers - Uh, that would be cool, but heh, no, I do not have supernatural powers). That would be to assume that these types do not have rationales for their reasoning, which would fail in Jungian psychology (because they apply judgment to it and it better intrinsically be compatible with judgment to begin with for the person to need judgment functions at all).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

To subjectively answer the OP's question though, I don't think I have this autotelic personality. Never have either - always had a hard time getting into zones (unless, of course, I find something very interesting from the get-go). Anything that might look autotelic about me might come from bad sensation (kind of primordial sensory self-control). That's about all I can really figure for this. I would guess all introverts in general give off this kind of vibe more, since with introversion comes a distance and intensive self focus from the outside world (the person kind of reasons from a more "abstract perch" so-to-speak, that is hard to compromise with the conditions deduced from the "object" (outside world, people around them, etc.) - they might always seem like they're talking to their own understanding, rather than objectively collaborating with someone else's (and they might just comfortably retreat into themselves to be able to concentrate on how they do stuff, etc., as well).


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

@myjazz - haha, sorry, that's a double misunderstanding then. 
@LeaT - thank you! That's a lot like what I heard before. It sure fits if you think of flow as "effortless attending" as @discoriver put, but that's not in the present and it's more like developing strategies focusedly, so I can see what @Bardo means.
@Bardo - I see. 
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'flow with a detail or two changed' but it sounds like what @Worth Lessemo said, but I have to think about that.
I see what you mean, but I don't. Then again, I'm not entirely sure of my type, because I've been unhealthy for as long as I can remember, so maybe I wouldn't anyway.
Aw, thanks, haha. I should say the same. Thanks for the help, you say... intelligible things. I can't follow this topic at all. But it's pretty interesting... or maybe scary... how ridiculously huge the discrepancy between people on this topic seems to be. It's literally like interpreting different languages, some harder than others.
@JungyesMBTIno - ...oh. Took me all of 4 pages to realize my use of "mystical" and baseless assumptions to get my point across annoyed you. Um. Can I say don't take "mystical" like that? I think it's mystical because it supposedly picks on subtle cues to reach a conclusion. It's like the thinking is done elsewhere, I don't know; I don't function like that so it's certainly mystical to me.
Aside from that, you're right.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Chell

Well, intuition (hunches) reach conclusions through "seeing into or behind" the object - metaphysical implications extracted from or implanted in possibilities (so, intuitions aren't possibilities themselves, but are how possibilities are organized and interpreted in terms of their potential for realization - intuitions are how the unconscious expectations align with possibilities - they are deduced from this alignment, where then, novel explanations can be originated for phenomena, patterns, etc. - it takes sensation to notice a pattern though, but good intuition might unconsciously arrive at the patterns faster than the sensation will (which is where underlying metaphysical notions take precedence as an explanation over something unrelated to ideas and more to reality values), whereas good sensation will just be affected immediately from what's off to the person from their experiential expectations faster than their intuitions will (so, they might get hit by more "hit-or-miss possibilities that frankly probably relate less to reality values and more to some kind of personal wisdom (related to life) rather than something in the realm of metaphysical conceptions). Both functions are extremely hard to explain in rational terms, because they aren't rational processes, but everyone has both - it's just that dominant Ns play up their intuitions - in fact, they lead with intuition to the point that they might think having unconscious perceptions is obvious - they might not be able to imagine how someone wouldn't focus on these (they might think people who repress or downplay intuition are naive (like, "Hello, you can't be that naive as not to realize the grand implications of this" - sensation types might view intuitives as naive for different reasons - think that intuitives are slow to adapt to real world expectations or slow at face-value comprehension). These are both projections though - not really true of either - it's just that S doms downplay intuition toward the content of their shadow (ego dystonic aspects) & vice-versa, so the good hunches of S doms often just tend to be loaded with negative or self-conscious inhibitions & the sense impressions of intuitives are very much the same that way - they can be fine with these as well, but they just tend to feel very "other" to the person, because they are rationalized so far away from the person's egotism (for some reason, the person sees no reason that they should be calling out observations from the perspective of their inferior, largely because it's closer to the more private self of the person that they surely can never be fully aware of).


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

Hahahaha! I don't know if has anything to do with being Ni-dom (though I have a feeling that it doesn't), but I definitely do that. One time, I got so distracted by trying to do a puzzle, that I had completely zoned-out for 3 hours. I could've sworn I'd only been solving the thing for 15 minutes.


----------



## discoriver (Jan 9, 2013)

@*JungyesMBTIno* I'm not trying to be mean, but it would be really helpful if you put some line breaks in your text. Long paragraphs are very hard on the eyes for reading. So make some paragraphs. I could list a dozen sources for this tip. Here's just the first hit I got from googling 'white space and readability' https://www.gonzaga.edu/academics/c...ss-Administration/undergraduate/SBAWR/IDR.asp

Your enormous blocks of solid text hurt my eyes. I've seen you post all over the forum and I'm almost never able to actually read what you say = (


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

discoriver said:


> @*JungyesMBTIno* I'm not trying to be mean, but it would be really helpful if you put some line breaks in your text. Long paragraphs are very hard on the eyes for reading. So make some paragraphs. I could list a dozen sources for this tip. Here's just the first hit I got from googling 'white space and readability' https://www.gonzaga.edu/academics/c...ss-Administration/undergraduate/SBAWR/IDR.asp
> 
> Your enormous blocks of solid text hurt my eyes. I've seen you post all over the forum and I'm almost never able to actually read what you say = (


Might as well ask her to use shorter sentences, too. Her last post in this thread only has three periods.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

What can ya' say, when JungyesMBTIno gets in the flow she gets in the flow


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

(....I sort of let this tab open and forgot to reply. SORRY. Too many tabs, too much P.)

@_JungyesMBTIno_ ... what
sorry, that was my first reaction. I understand what you're saying. I mean, I understand in my terms at least. Well... if there's one thing I don't get, it is how you speak of "intuition"... at first it sounded like you were describing introverted intuition, but anyway. It doesn't matter. ...What I don't understand is what you were trying to tell me. I'm not even kidding, I just... don't.

(...is this when Ne goes wild trying to follow Ni? I'm like... Maybe the point was "why (introverted?) intuition can be seen as metaphysical"? Maybe the point was... oh! Maybe the point was dissecting my "[mystical because] it picks on subtle cues to reach a conclusion"? Yes, maybe. But making a point of that still doesn't make sense? Because the description still sounds like introverted intuition... so um... it would be the same... maybe the point was for me to relate to this intuition in the broader sense? Nah, probably not. Maybe the point wasn't related to that part at all. Maybe the point was showing "Ni getting in the flow"... or maybe there wasn't a point at all... maybe I should go get some cake.)

@_QrivaN_ Thanks for answering! I don't know... but I'm also very 'good' at forgetting where I am/what time it is when I get caught up in something interesting.  Maybe it's just ... lack of attention towards the external world due to sincere disinterest. (well I'm guilty of that.)


----------



## QrivaN (Aug 3, 2012)

Chell said:


> @_QrivaN_ Thanks for answering! I don't know... but I'm also very 'good' at forgetting where I am/what time it is when I get caught up in something interesting.  Maybe it's just ... lack of attention towards the external world due to sincere disinterest. (well I'm guilty of that.)


Same here. For me, though, it's not even that I'm disinterested. I just genuinely miss things for no good reason. It's like when you look for the ketchup bottle in the refrigerator and can't find it even though it's staring you in the face. I'm like that all of the time. I wonder if that has anything to do with inferior Se, or if it's just me being a ditz...
It gets even worse when I am preoccupied with something interesting (like that puzzle I mentioned earlier). I'll zone out and be completely oblivious to everything (though it's the exact opposite if I'm supposed to be doing something boring).

Oh, and about the Ne trying to follow Ni thing; it's probably hard because, from what I know of the functions at least, it seems that the inverse (Ni following Ne) comes much more naturally to both parties. Just my two-cents on that...


----------



## rin111 (May 23, 2012)

Chell said:


> How do you feel about this?
> *Would you say you have this 'autotelic' personality?*
> 
> I'm intrigued because of how mystical it is. Alright, maybe mystical isn't the most appropriate word, but every description of it - by which I mean descriptions from self-typed Ni-doms - seems to portray it in a "mystical light". There was a particular topic in which self-typed users were talking about achieving a state of flow at their best, doing things and not recognizing it afterwards, not rationalizing etc. So it's... kind of... mystical, in that sense? There's also the fact that it's usually tied to religion and whatnot, but let's not go into that.
> ...


I think 'flow' is a rather underdefined term. Almost as badly defined as Ni seems.

But if 'flow' means losing yourself in something you're doing/thinking and distorting perceived time, then everyone gets into it at some point. There's that special something everyone likes to do that they immerse themselves in. 

Ni seems to have garnered a 'Weird, mystical, awesome!' tag all over Perc partly because, in my opinion, Ni prolly can't be defined practically by non-Ni users and even Ni users don't really know what the heck it is.

For me, it's basically instinct that tells you, for no pinpoint reason , that THIS is the right thing. For ex. while cooking, you don't know what you're doing, you don't know what exactly the outcome is going to be, you have a misty idea and you don;t even know what you've tossed in, but in the end, it turns out great because you just 'felt' right.

I like to think of Ni as being able to connect to a universal conscience merely because it believes in it and wants to. Maybe i'm wrong. Likey. 


I think Ni basically just pulls things out of its nose, with a vague idea that there's logic behind it, sometimes not even that, but generally gets it right.

And a great part of the mysticism behind Ni, again my op, is because Ni users try to jump up the other functions because, hey, you don't work at it and you still get it right, that's cool, right? No, that's not necessarily better than Te/Ti because Ni is moody.

Coming to the question- Is Ni better to get in the flow?
It is likely. 

Ni/Ne tend to take in external information and attach values to it. Se may see a rock inscribes with a pattern and say, here's a rock, here's some lines on it, it is likely a weathering pattern because the surrounding may hint at it. Ne would go all the way from ancient language to alien invasions. Ni would look at it and say, it ain't safe here. Lets move! 

So Se/Si seem to live in the physical world whereas Ni prefers owner's mind/imagination.

I get absorbed in certain things to a point where i can miss meals and not even realize it.
There are times when i've forgotten whether i even ate. 
If the dustbins are full, i may not notice. 
I am organised because i hate finding things, because i'm not good at it.

So i think Ne AND Ni (especially in conjugation with Te and Ti) fall into a flow more often than Se/Si. that's not to say Se/Si don't.PS. I can totally see an Ni-Ti trance in trying to figure out/ create a concept that fits into present reality but features stuff unlikely to happen in reality! maybe some functions experience a deeper flow?
BTW, Ni-Ti
Illogical logic FTW!


----------



## Chell (Dec 25, 2009)

QrivaN said:


> Same here. For me, though, it's not even that I'm disinterested. I just genuinely miss things for no good reason. It's like when you look for the ketchup bottle in the refrigerator and can't find it even though it's staring you in the face. I'm like that all of the time. I wonder if that has anything to do with inferior Se, or if it's just me being a ditz...
> It gets even worse when I am preoccupied with something interesting (like that puzzle I mentioned earlier). I'll zone out and be completely oblivious to everything (though it's the exact opposite if I'm supposed to be doing something boring).
> 
> Oh, and about the Ne trying to follow Ni thing; it's probably hard because, from what I know of the functions at least, it seems that the inverse (Ni following Ne) comes much more naturally to both parties. Just my two-cents on that...


Haha, yes! Basically same here.  I guess the difference is that I feel like it is due to disinterest on some level. I mean, obviously anyone wants to find what they're looking for... but unless I make an effort to focus, I feel overwhelmed - like there are too many things, so it's like I'm seeing a "blur" (yeah, wearing glasses even) and go for the reds. ...it gets critical when I want to, say, read a leaflet on a wall, because I have to stare at it for a few seconds until I can actually focus and read what it's about.
...sorry, I went on a tangent. (I'm really into perception and stuff whoops) all of that is probably more related to OCD-related visual processing impairment than JCF, but still. 
But on a possibly related note, I find it easier to zone out by getting lost in thoughts than getting distracted by external stimuli... (...it's really bad nonetheless, so much that I grew to dislike books because of that.)

Yeah, I have to agree. I don't know much about JCF (if anything at all) to say but I feel that as well. Because Ni (if not consciously but still) "weighs" every possibility taking into account the whole scenery and comes up with a specific answer, as long as the scenery is stable, there's this plan/idea in the air, and Ne alone can't really pick up on it.


----------

