# Introverted Intuition as explained by an Ni-dom



## Jakuri

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I also initially thought of them as eight sort of "building blocks". I find that many descriptions portray them as such, which bothers me. I realize that going too far in depth loses an audience, but it seems like they should be as theoretically correct instead of going so far as to basically say "Te types are jerks, Ti types are nerds, Fe types are over sensitive, Fi types are over emotional, Se types are thick, Si types are narrow minded, Ne types are ADD, and Ni types are prophets." One of these things is not like the other...


I lol'd at that. One comment on Si though. Si is still a perceiving function. So IxxJ people, despite the "J" in their preferences, are not as close-minded and "stubborn" as some descriptions makes out to be. 

This is the way I think of Si. I don't consider myself that well-versed in Si so anyone feel free to weigh in. There is a librarian in one's mind freely pulling out a book or books (experiences recording all the details vividly), comparing it with a new one, and either writing (and cataloguing/labelling) a new book or use the J function to stabilize and then incorporate. This 'pulling out a book' thing, Si-doms tend to do it much more easily than other types. It's easy to think, therefore, to say that Si are more "traditional" and "narrow-minded". As long as one can explain that what seems to be a totally new idea isn't as far-fetched as an Si-dom thinks, with facts/experiences/examples, etc, Si is capable of accepting it and cataloguing it. Putting such label is an easy way out; just let them "perceive" your idea the right way (so that they can 'catalogue'), and it will be easy to see Si's are not as inflexible as one makes out to be.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Yes, I find this frustrating. Not only is it unhelpful to those learning, but it's unhelpful to INJs who are trying to figure out why they're so darn weird; it sets an obscure and unreasonable bar that sheds no light into the process.


Yes, and I also don't think INFJs in particular should measure themselves by J-standards, such as scheduling, being on time, neatness, etc. I'm actually running late all the time because I'm so in my head. I don't like making schedules either. Ni is a spontaneous process because it's a perceiving function, so without sufficiently developed extraverted functions Fe/Se to ground them in the real world (as you say in your post), an INFJ is going to look quite unorganized on the outside and probably will test as a perceiver, as well. 




KalimofDaybreak said:


> I'll definitely look into that. Thanks for the recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> Another article I will make sure I read.


Be warned, James Joyce is extremely difficult, especially Finnegans Wake, which is practically incomprehensible, but his earlier works are more accessible. You just won't see the wordplay on display as much.


----------



## Ksara

O_o said:


> It's stable, sure, but is it really given? We don't need reason to zoom in or be blind towards particular aspects yet we do it daily, to a unique degree. I don't know if we ever just see: to see, one needs to acknowledge I would think, is it "sight" otherwise? I go back to "blind sight" again with this one : it's up for debate. But every single sight, object, direction is specific, finally tuned to the individual, selected. One individual looks at a scene and is overpowered by it, another looks at the same thing with glazed eyes : they're not seeing the same thing. Arguably, one of them isn't even seeing. You have three individuals on a trip and they all come back with vastly different "themes" from the same experience. Every individual has a "theme" to their sight. A natural tuning. Sight and attention are incredibly subjective thing. Preference in perception is the general nature of that focus.
> 
> Though I get what you're trying to get across lol~


I am getting my head around what you are suggesting here 

The process of seeing:

Light enters eye, light sensitive cells send electric impulses via the optic nerve, and your brain has many regions to interpret sight. There will be the image you see, the sense of seeing (I think this is more sensing movement via sight, It is not visually rendering an image in you mind, more a sense of something coming your way. Lizards see in this way. They are blind to the world but can sense movement with a strong sense of knowing. This is a process you are not consciously aware of), memories, emotional responses, and other regions of the brain lighting up processing and interpreting the data. 

A lot of this processing occurs in you unconscious mind and what you actually see is the rendering your brain does based on current input, but a lot of it based on memory, imagination, emotion, impressions you may be completely unaware of. It takes a hell of a lot of energy for the brain to keep a constant stream of what it actually sees in the conscious mind. instead it just shows you what it expects to see based on memory as that gets you by pretty well and is much more energy efficient.

Now what does this mean? No one has ever seen the world as it actually is, only our brains interpretation of the world. How this is interpreted is unique to the individual, so you are correct about each individual having a 'theme' to their sight. Getting to the nitty gritty, yes it is inaccurate to say sight is just 'given' as the brain must process to see. It would perhaps be more correct to say to the conscious mind sight 'appears' to be given. The process of seeing is predominantly done unconsciously.

Now sight can be 'changed' with conscious effort. I would say it takes conscious effort to pay attention to a particular way of seeing.

What is really interesting is how what goes on in your conscious mind can affect the unconscious mind and vice versa. So with conscious effort one can change what they 'see'. One way is to change you internal dialogue. Having a loop repeat in your head "i'm fat" changes your perception of yourself and you will appear fat in the mirror, you will see all the parts of yourself that are flabby and somewhat unsightly in the mirror. If you shift this dialogue to "i'm beautiful" you will se the aspects of yourself that you admire and overall see yourself in a positive light. Essentially this personal 'theme' can be consciously changed.



And all of this is beyond the scope of what I was attempting to articulate with my example haha.

Jung does note in his definition of intuition that the products of intuition (and sensation) are given rather than deduced such as with judgment. Which is useful to be able to distinguish as intuition can appear in the form of sensation, feeling or thinking.


----------



## Jakuri

Ran into this, and thought it was pretty funny so I figured I might as wall share it here ^^








Source: Sterling's Serving Staff — Extroverted Intuition (Ne) vs. Introverted...


----------



## Ksara

@Jakuri
My weird and wonderful experiences:
every time I randomly use the phrase "wouldn't it be funny if..." it happens. It's usually an off the cuff remark so I'm not deliberately saying it to make it happen.

I have multiple times seen movie or a person on TV, and I blurt out that is ... . Yup correct even though I have NEVER seen the movie, or have ever seen the person or what they have done.

Assumptions assumptions assumptions, yep I seem to make them without even realising. Group work at uni the lecturer suggested we read this 20 page document. I just knew that was a waste of time and the information we wanted were the 4 or five graphs in the reading. We just needed to understand what they meant. Yup turned out I was correct.

We had a presentation to give, I knew the lecturer was not looking for much, really just a brief summary. One of my group members insisted we write up cue cards, and go through quite a few runs practicing. Really it turned out to be a waste of time as we had overprepared, just as I had predicted.

Your explanation to your officemate. Yep I do similar things all the time. Really watching my own thought pattern, often the idea comes to me then the reasoning that makes sense, often full of facts I believe to be correct. I can ask a question of myself and hours, days, weeks later have the answer randomly come to me. I was looking at the bone anatomy of the arm and the person who showed me said that the shoulder joint was a weak joint and dislocations are a common occurrence. Why is that I thought? I began to reason: maybe it has something to do with evolution, that is we could survive with a dislocated shoulder and so weak shoulders got passed on? not confident. At least a weak later I look at my partners arm and it hit me, it's because we can lift our arms above our head. Then the reasoning, yeah we evolved from a monkey like creature, perhaps this is the trade of be able to swing through the trees more beneficial than strong shoulder sockets. A stronger socket, such as the hip joint, would have less movement and more restriction.

It's also not uncommon for a symbol to appear in my mind that represents something large concept. In my minds eye I see the sun breaking through dark clouds, and I know that my life is going to increase in positivity. Even now I think about that image and moment, essentially to find why that may be (perhaps i'm just picked up on a change in the weather as spring was approaching at the time, which would mean more sunlight, and a resulting improvement in mood?).


I don't feel that any of these things feel like a hunch. More so a sense of 'knowing', or 'this is it' haha


----------



## Mizmar

Thank you for this in-depth post. I wish there were more like it on this forum.



KalimofDaybreak said:


> I say "think" loosely, here (Ni definitely does not think in conventional manners, either); my main mode of thought is a state that I liken to the Genesis creation story--a presence hovering over the ocean of the unconscious, *watching images, memories, hunches, ideas, anything like that, bubble to the surface of my consciousness.*


What do these images/ideas look like? Are they in motion, or are they static images like photographs? Do you see them vividly, in high detail? Or are they kinda...foggy or non-descript? Do they stir emotions within you, or are they emotionally neutral?



> Because Ni views things in terms of the perspectives they represent, they may feel drawn to other patterns of thought and deeper meaning: symbols, archetypes, the mysterious, anything that gives their Ni something to search for.


How would you distinguish this from a Ne type's attraction to such things? What would be the difference in motivation?


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Ksara said:


> I think the other issue is we are attempting to define what they are, and that is a thinking process. You can define what a tree is (thinking). You can define what it is worth to you (feeling) (ok perhaps a little trickier). But how do you explain and define to someone the mere seeing of a tree? It is something you experience. It's like attempting to explain the colour blue to a blind person. Perception functions are being filtered through thinking when it is defined/labelled and put into a system.
> 
> And then this comes to my struggle, how do I know what I am mentally experiencing does line up with a particular function? The way someone experiences blue may not be how I see blue, but we are both still seeing. Identifying how one sees is not the same as experiencing of seeing.


I think what you're observing here is the breakdown between theory and reality. In the end, we can't articulate very well how we perceive, but we have an idea of what that perception is like. The only way we can define it is, like you said, through a rational function, but ultimately something is lost in translation. I think another problem is that perception is, by definition, irrational, and therefore slippery and hard to pin down in common language.

And as far as your second question, the answer I can really say is that you don't. Epistemology has been asking the same question about things much more concrete than Jung's theory since Plato. I think the best way to identify your own functions is to study and understand the theory as completely as possible, and then apply the pure ideas of the functions to your thought. You're right, the experience of perception is different from the process, but all eyes, despite nuance, have a certain method of perception, ears another, noses another, you get the idea. If you can apprehend the pure idea of a function, then it becomes easier to see how you might use it.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Jakuri said:


> Based on this I theorize this can explain why people who don't extravert/introvert enough may have hard time deciding on their type. Get locked down to one of the two orientations, fall into the loop, hence confusing between the two functions. Throwing my idea out there.


I would agree with this.



Jakuri said:


> Back to the original topic. Thanks for the clarification (and to both of you). It looks like I am closer to Ni then? I have a fairly strong Ti also though -- this due to the fact that I am doing math, then. I still believe certain thinking (no pun intended) process can yield two cogent explanations (in this case, "this is Ni" vs "this is Ti"), causing confusions.
> Like the OP, I will write down my own episodes (well, what I believe is Ni, though the third one I don't know).
> 
> Five years ago, for some reason I thought the professor I invited to give a talk for the club I was leading was a vegetarian (you know, there is always free food ). I was sure but still wanted to ask if that was the case, and received an affirmative answer. I didn't even know why I was compelled to ask. I talked to her once, and perhaps from her face, gesture, my first impression of her, etc may have picked up some sign that she may be morally opposed to eating animals. I didn't ask about her reasons, so these I don't know.
> 
> Similar episode here also
> 
> Guess I will focus more on my current adviser. Didn't take long for me to see that he would be pretty hands-off and I should expect to work on my own for the most part. I was mostly introducing myself and explained the work I did; he was generous with his time (and attention); and he was friendly and courteous. But I felt there was a certain layer that I couldn't seem to penetrate so to speak. Nice and generous yes, but felt a bit of coldness also. I am not sure if those happened before reaching my conclusion, or after. I am inclined to think those thoughts happened almost concurrently.
> 
> Third one. My officemate was complaining to me that he goes to bed early enough (we have an 08:30 class this semester...T___T) to get up at 7 but he keeps getting up at 6 and wide awake despite not having enough sleep. My first response to this was: "I suppose that you think about the early morning class at the back of your head, which makes you not want to oversleep; once you get up, you can't fall asleep for fear of sleeping through the lecture". Even though my statement was far from a rigorous deduction, I feel this can reasonably be attributed to Ti. Or can be Ni (associations and unification of ideas, hence with a convergent bent) quickly connecting dots together inside my mind. Which brings me to (emphasis mine)


You seem like an INFJ from these statements. You're quite fast at reading people, even if it's unconscious, as most INFJs are. I think the first episode is also a good example of Ni doing its weirdness, as with the second episode. I'm also inclined to say a mix of Ni and Ti for the last episode; you used Ti to make the deduction, but I also want to venture a guess that prior to your speaking, an idea just popped into your head, not a complete idea, but an intuitive understand of what you're going to say. That, I think, in its most common manifestation, especially before the brain has fully matured. I use that process of intuitively knowing what to do or how to say something literally (not the figurative literally, literally literally) all the time. Ni happens in the moment (despite the futurist attitude it lends to is users), whereas Ti happens after the fact.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Jakuri said:


> I lol'd at that. One comment on Si though. Si is still a perceiving function. So IxxJ people, despite the "J" in their preferences, are not as close-minded and "stubborn" as some descriptions makes out to be.


And on that same note, IJs are not judgers in the classic sense. I, for instance, initially tested as INFP the first time I took the test, simply because I don't structure my time when I don't have to (which I am learning to do). INFJs and ISFJs are prone to doing this since Fe isn't a get 'er done function, but they still understand people by way of their social classifications and their relationship to other people and all of that sort of thing--in a Je manner. In the same way, IFJs are more prone to being very structured when people depend on them, especially when Fe isn't fully developed. ITJs are wired in a much more J fashion simply because the J stereotype is essentially Te. All IJs, though, are leading Perceivers, which can make them score as Ps early in life, before Je really develops.



Jakuri said:


> This is the way I think of Si. I don't consider myself that well-versed in Si so anyone feel free to weigh in. There is a librarian in one's mind freely pulling out a book or books (experiences recording all the details vividly), comparing it with a new one, and either writing (and cataloguing/labelling) a new book or use the J function to stabilize and then incorporate. This 'pulling out a book' thing, Si-doms tend to do it much more easily than other types. It's easy to think, therefore, to say that Si are more "traditional" and "narrow-minded". As long as one can explain that what seems to be a totally new idea isn't as far-fetched as an Si-dom thinks, with facts/experiences/examples, etc, Si is capable of accepting it and cataloguing it. Putting such label is an easy way out; just let them "perceive" your idea the right way (so that they can 'catalogue'), and it will be easy to see Si's are not as inflexible as one makes out to be.


I like this understanding of Si. Here are two videos that could help shed some light on the subject, if you're interested in learning more:


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

mistakenforstranger said:


> Yes, and I also don't think INFJs in particular should measure themselves by J-standards, such as scheduling, being on time, neatness, etc. I'm actually running late all the time because I'm so in my head. I don't like making schedules either. Ni is a spontaneous process because it's a perceiving function, so without sufficiently developed extraverted functions Fe/Se to ground them in the real world (as you say in your post), an INFJ is going to look quite unorganized on the outside and probably will test as a perceiver, as well.


As I said earlier, I originally tested as INFP. It was only after studying the functions that I determined myself to be an Ni-dominant. Growing up, INFJs seem very P because of their Ni. Since the J stereotype is basically an ESTJ, I've all but discounted that letter's meaning. Myers and Briggs created their system to be a shortcut to Jung's work, so I'm not saying it's bad, but I think a lot of folks get mistyped because of it. I actually like Socionics' letter system here better, just because it acknowledges IJ types as perceivers instead of judgers.




mistakenforstranger said:


> Be warned, James Joyce is extremely difficult, especially Finnegans Wake, which is practically incomprehensible, but his earlier works are more accessible. You just won't see the wordplay on display as much.


Thanks for the warning.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Jakuri said:


> Ran into this, and thought it was pretty funny so I figured I might as wall share it here ^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: Sterling's Serving Staff â€” Extroverted Intuition (Ne) vs. Introverted...


Haha, this wouldn't be funny if it wasn't kind of true...


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Ksara said:


> @Jakuri
> My weird and wonderful experiences:
> every time I randomly use the phrase "wouldn't it be funny if..." it happens. It's usually an off the cuff remark so I'm not deliberately saying it to make it happen.
> 
> I have multiple times seen movie or a person on TV, and I blurt out that is ... . Yup correct even though I have NEVER seen the movie, or have ever seen the person or what they have done.
> 
> Assumptions assumptions assumptions, yep I seem to make them without even realising. Group work at uni the lecturer suggested we read this 20 page document. I just knew that was a waste of time and the information we wanted were the 4 or five graphs in the reading. We just needed to understand what they meant. Yup turned out I was correct.
> 
> We had a presentation to give, I knew the lecturer was not looking for much, really just a brief summary. One of my group members insisted we write up cue cards, and go through quite a few runs practicing. Really it turned out to be a waste of time as we had overprepared, just as I had predicted.
> 
> Your explanation to your officemate. Yep I do similar things all the time. Really watching my own thought pattern, often the idea comes to me then the reasoning that makes sense, often full of facts I believe to be correct. I can ask a question of myself and hours, days, weeks later have the answer randomly come to me. I was looking at the bone anatomy of the arm and the person who showed me said that the shoulder joint was a weak joint and dislocations are a common occurrence. Why is that I thought? I began to reason: maybe it has something to do with evolution, that is we could survive with a dislocated shoulder and so weak shoulders got passed on? not confident. At least a weak later I look at my partners arm and it hit me, it's because we can lift our arms above our head. Then the reasoning, yeah we evolved from a monkey like creature, perhaps this is the trade of be able to swing through the trees more beneficial than strong shoulder sockets. A stronger socket, such as the hip joint, would have less movement and more restriction.
> 
> It's also not uncommon for a symbol to appear in my mind that represents something large concept. In my minds eye I see the sun breaking through dark clouds, and I know that my life is going to increase in positivity. Even now I think about that image and moment, essentially to find why that may be (perhaps i'm just picked up on a change in the weather as spring was approaching at the time, which would mean more sunlight, and a resulting improvement in mood?).
> 
> 
> I don't feel that any of these things feel like a hunch. More so a sense of 'knowing', or 'this is it' haha


I do think 'hunch' is something of a misnomer here. I think the stereotype of going with your gut comes from living in a society that represses intuition; most INJs, myself included, don't think of their intuition as 'intuition' in the normal sense. To us, these premonitions just feel like we 'know' something, and it's fairly normal for us. Intuition isn't really special to us in the way society seems to think it is, or should be. So it makes sense that you think of it as 'just knowing'. From what you've described, I have few doubts that you're a INJ.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Mizmar said:


> Thank you for this in-depth post. I wish there were more like it on this forum.
> 
> What do these images/ideas look like? Are they in motion, or are they static images like photographs? Do you see them vividly, in high detail? Or are they kinda...foggy or non-descript? Do they stir emotions within you, or are they emotionally neutral?


Very nondescript. I'm only ever really aware of the products of all this slushing ideas together. I can 'see' in some sense, colors and images bouncing around inside my head, but it always moves so fast I rarely have time to look at them closely. Usually I only have a vague idea of what I'm seeing, and I often see solid colors as well. (I also have grapheme synesthesia, so letters and numbers have color in my mind, which affects it.) They also tend to be emotionally neutral, although sometimes a feeling bubbles up. Foggy is the best way to describe it.



Mizmar said:


> How would you distinguish this from a Ne type's attraction to such things? What would be the difference in motivation?


Let's imagine the unknown as a void of knowledge, but for understanding's sake, and actual void. Ne looks at this void and sees a huge, empty space waiting to explored. They want to look at every inch of it and find as much data in it as possible (data, here, being 'things' or 'facts' or any quantifiable measure of information). They're unrestrained in their approach. Ni, on the other hand, might be inclined to observe the same void, but feel pulled to it in a more abstract sense, like staring off over the edge of a boat at sea and feeling tugged towards the deepness below them. In a way, Ni's approach is more restrained because unlike Ne, which wants to know everything as quickly as possible, Ni almost wants to preserve that not knowing; it gives them something to strive for. Put more simply, Ne is motivated by all the possible meanings of a symbol, all the possible archetypes, and all possible explanations of the mysterious. Ni is drawn to the mysterious because it is mysterious--it allows them to form their own meanings about something and still feel that sensation of almost-fear, of what it actually is. To Ni, it is something into which the self can be channeled. To Ne, it represents a huge ocean of untapped potential.


----------



## Mizmar

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Very nondescript. I'm only ever really aware of the products of all this slushing ideas together. I can 'see' in some sense, colors and images bouncing around inside my head, but it always moves so fast I rarely have time to look at them closely. Usually I only have a vague idea of what I'm seeing, and I often see solid colors as well. (I also have grapheme synesthesia, so letters and numbers have color in my mind, which affects it.) They also tend to be emotionally neutral, although sometimes a feeling bubbles up. Foggy is the best way to describe it.
> 
> Let's imagine the unknown as a void of knowledge, but for understanding's sake, and actual void. Ne looks at this void and sees a huge, empty space waiting to explored. They want to look at every inch of it and find as much data in it as possible (data, here, being 'things' or 'facts' or any quantifiable measure of information). They're unrestrained in their approach. Ni, on the other hand, might be inclined to observe the same void, but feel pulled to it in a more abstract sense, like staring off over the edge of a boat at sea and feeling tugged towards the deepness below them. In a way, Ni's approach is more restrained because unlike Ne, which wants to know everything as quickly as possible, Ni almost wants to preserve that not knowing; it gives them something to strive for. Put more simply, Ne is motivated by all the possible meanings of a symbol, all the possible archetypes, and all possible explanations of the mysterious. Ni is drawn to the mysterious because it is mysterious--it allows them to form their own meanings about something and still feel that sensation of almost-fear, of what it actually is. To Ni, it is something into which the self can be channeled. To Ne, it represents a huge ocean of untapped potential.


Interesting. I wouldn't be inclined to type myself as a Ni-dom based on the most of the discussion in this thread. On the other hand, I really relate to what you wrote in your reply to me.

I've always thought Jung's description of introverted intuition described the way my mind works pretty well. But what he calls "introverted intuition" is what I always would have called "thinking" or "daydreaming" or maybe "imagining". Meanwhile what _I_ call intuition is something that I experience as a gut feeling.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Mizmar said:


> Interesting. I wouldn't be inclined to type myself as a Ni-dom based on the most of the discussion in this thread. On the other hand, I really relate to what you wrote in your reply to me.
> 
> I've always thought Jung's description of introverted intuition described the way my mind works pretty well. But what he calls "introverted intuition" is what I always would have called "thinking" or "daydreaming" or maybe "imagining". Meanwhile what _I_ call intuition is something that I experience as a gut feeling.


That could very well be. The issue with Jung's work is he struggled to find the language to express what he was thinking. I'm not saying I know exactly what he was, but I think the amount of work that has gone into his theory over the years have helped it age well. I'm curious: which parts did you find yourself relating to, and what parts keep you from typing yourself as Ni?


----------



## dulcinea

Is there a correlation between being Ni dom and having a tendency to obsess? I obsess to the point that I'm seriously considering getting tested for OCD. I find when I'm stressed, I tend to take on serious obsessive-compulsive traits.


----------



## Entropic

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Yeah--I was really trying to describe Ni as purely as I could, but I couldn't really do that without implicating Se's enormous effect on its function. That's why I spent that paragraph talking about how INJs need to get out; *their Ni will only be as good as their experience*.


I disagree with this, and I think this is a myth about how Ni-Se works. Either you take in information for a vision to form or you don't. There's no "more or less correct or accurate information", because all the information you take in is taken in either way. You take in the information that you need in order to formulate an understanding of a thing. This idea seems to be based on the logic that you can somehow only take in 60% or 20% of sufficient information around you but only by "going on", can you take in "100%" of information, but that's not really how it works. You always take in 100%. You cannot take in more information than what you already take in about any given thing. You don't miss out on information you did not experience in the first place. This logic is flawed for the same reason that the logic of piracy equals loss for the company being flawed or that the human brain would not work at 100% all the time because all centers of the brain are not activated during any given activity, because in all cases it's dealing with a hypothetical loss that cannot be measured. Just like the human brain activates the centers necessary and not more and not less, inferior Se takes in sufficient information required to formulate an impression for Ni, not more and not less.



dulcinea said:


> Is there a correlation between being Ni dom and having a tendency to obsess? I obsess to the point that I'm seriously considering getting tested for OCD. I find when I'm stressed, I tend to take on serious obsessive-compulsive traits.


No. Ni is a type of cognition and has nothing to do with those kinds of personality aspects.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Entropic said:


> I disagree with this, and I think this is a myth about how Ni-Se works. Either you take in information for a vision to form or you don't. There's no "more or less correct or accurate information", because all the information you take in is taken in either way. You take in the information that you need in order to formulate an understanding of a thing. This idea seems to be based on the logic that you can somehow only take in 60% or 20% of sufficient information around you but only by "going on", can you take in "100%" of information, but that's not really how it works. You always take in 100%. You cannot take in more information than what you already take in about any given thing. You don't miss out on information you did not experience in the first place. This logic is flawed for the same reason that the logic of piracy equals loss for the company being flawed or that the human brain would not work at 100% all the time because all centers of the brain are not activated during any given activity, because in all cases it's dealing with a hypothetical loss that cannot be measured. Just like the human brain activates the centers necessary and not more and not less, inferior Se takes in sufficient information required to formulate an impression for Ni, not more and not less.


I wasn't clear with what I said there. I wasn't saying that you can only take in 60-20% of the information in a given situation. Rather, I was saying that the INJ needs to put himself into a situation to begin with. We have a tendency to be hermits, which doesn't exactly do much in the way of stimulating Se. The accuracy of our visions and the quality of our understanding will be directly affected by whether or not we put ourselves in new situations and learn new things. Otherwise, Se will only be telling us the same things over and over again, which limits our capabilities. We may become quite excellent at making predictions about the people in our workplace because we're around them every day. That has nothing to do with, say, the company's stock value, and our predictions will be less accurate about the stock because we don't have as much experience in that area. That's kind of a no-duh statement, but I think seeking out experience is especially important for INJs because a) we don't do it naturally and b) if we become too specialized, then adapting to unexpected circumstances is harder, and we miss out on other perspectives that can be helpful in whatever we're working on. We lose our power of many perspectives if we only work with a few, and I don't think any information is a waste. So I'm not saying that Ni-Se will take in more or less information, like you said, that's stupid. But our experiences are ultimately our source of information; we should seek out new experiences, even if only occasionally, just to spice things up every now and again and acquire new ways of looking at things.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

dulcinea said:


> Is there a correlation between being Ni dom and having a tendency to obsess? I obsess to the point that I'm seriously considering getting tested for OCD. I find when I'm stressed, I tend to take on serious obsessive-compulsive traits.


Depends on what you mean by obsess. Ni is very singular in its focus, and if it's unhealthy or you're not taking the necessary steps to control your more obsessive thoughts, then I could see how you would think you have OCD. That said, I doubt the two are correlated; we don't know the exact cause of OCD, but I doubt that Ni, whatever the processes that we call Ni are, is directly involved. My questions to you would be: a) define obsessive, b) what are you obsessing over, and c) why do think you're obsessing over this. More than likely you're experiencing something purely cognitive; OCD tends to be more, well, obsessive than pop culture lets on when we say that we're 'so OCD'. That said, I'm also not a doctor.


----------



## Entropic

KalimofDaybreak said:


> I wasn't clear with what I said there.



No, you were perfectly clear, but you are _not_ understanding my issue. It becomes very obvious, here:



> I wasn't saying that you can only take in 60-20% of the information in a given situation. Rather, I was saying that the INJ needs to put himself into a situation to begin with. We have a tendency to be hermits, which doesn't exactly do much in the way of stimulating Se. The accuracy of our visions and the quality of our understanding will be directly affected by whether or not we put ourselves in new situations and learn new things. Otherwise, Se will only be telling us the same things over and over again, which limits our capabilities. We may become quite excellent at making predictions about the people in our workplace because we're around them every day. *That has nothing to do with, say, the company's stock value, and our predictions will be less accurate about the stock because we don't have as much experience in that area.* That's kind of a no-duh statement, but I think seeking out experience is especially important for INJs because a) we don't do it naturally and b) if we become too specialized, then adapting to unexpected circumstances is harder, and we miss out on other perspectives that can be helpful in whatever we're working on. We lose our power of many perspectives if we only work with a few, and I don't think any information is a waste.


First of all, what you are talking about here has nothing to do with pure Ni in itself as a form of perception. If you think it does, I'm sorry, but you are incorrect on this one. Being able to predict the stock market requires one to research and has experience with the stock market. You don't need to be an Ni dom in order to make those predictions. We have machines with very neat logical algorithms that does it for us. You are mixing up something that honestly sounds way much related to enneagram motivations in here (being a hermit, becoming too specialized in one particular subject, thinking all information is useful and nothing can ever go to waste), but has nothing to do with Ni as an actual form of cognition.

See, I don't share those sentiments and I dare say my Ni works just fine without, because none of the things you listed got anything to do with Ni. *I repeat, this is not a misunderstanding, this is not you being clear, but this is you making incorrect and wrong assertions about the nature of Ni. *Am I clear? Good. So, what do I think Ni does, then, and how does this relate to inferior Se?

Se collects information around us unconsciously. It notices physical details. This is an _irrational_ process, and I cannot stress this enough. As an irrational function, it entirely hinges upon personal experiences and taking in irrational facts and data around us, e.g. the sun rose this morning, that woman cried on her way to work, my cat is acting derpy today. 

This is why the example about the stock market that you gave is faulty, because that example is *not* irrational but rational. The situation about the stocket is a Te activity, not a purely Ni one. Ni can surely play a role in observing patterns, but to accurately predict the nature of the stock market isn't just enough to sit and watch the stock go up and down all day or how else you expect an Ni dom to *experience* the stock. What irrational experiences are you going to get out of that, exactly? And the truth is you won't get much from it, unless you happened to live at Wall Street or something and almost literally in the market. 

Furthermore, you don't _need_ to predict the stock market for your company unless you are asked to. What purpose does that serve? Why would you predict anything outside of an area you are currently _not_ situated within? Then you are very much operating on the principle I already outlined; you make this assumption that because you are not experiencing all the potential stuff you could experience because you are not seeking out those experiences, you are somehow not operating according to your full potential. Do you fully understand this argument or not? Do you fully understand what I am trying to convey to you right now? Just give me a yes/no answer and if you understand please do explain what I mean so I can confirm, and if you don't, explain what you don't understand and I'll try to explain it again.


If you agree with me that the principle I already outlined is that we always take in sufficient information to make proper predictions about our current situation because we always take in the information that we need, not more, not less, in order to do so, that *is* sufficient. That is 100%. What Ni really does is that it will observe patterns over time. It can well make connections between a pattern of an entirely different situation than the current but still see a similarity between the two and how the current situation will play out because even though they are very different contexts, they got one thing in common that Ni eventually picked up on. 



> So I'm not saying that Ni-Se will take in more or less information, like you said, that's stupid. But our experiences are ultimately our source of information; we should seek out new experiences, even if only occasionally, just to spice things up every now and again and acquire new ways of looking at things.


And my argument is; we don't need to. This is not related to our cognition or cognitive tools. Seeking new experiences is not necessarily going to "spice things up" or make us "see things in a novel way". This is a myth that we need to actively seek new experiences in order to make our Ni more accurate because Ni doesn't work that way. Archetypes are archetypes; you recognize an archetype when you have accumulated sufficient experience to recognize it and that happens when it happens because Ni is _irrational_, and so is Se. You cannot control what information is going to actually trigger an intuitive perception of the world because it's unconscious. A person who is hitchhiking every day would be considered to always be in touch with new experiences is not necessarily going to experience the archetypal world more or better than someone who sits at home and reads the internet because in both cases, they are still exposed to various forms of stimulus and some of that will be new, and some of that will be old. Visiting a new forum with new people is new experience, watching a video on Youtube you've never seen before is new experience too, reading an article on Wikipedia you haven't read before is also new experience. Your argument is flawed, because every passing moment by definition is new, because it is not the same as the present. I'd refer to the quote by Heraclitus that says you cannot pass the same river twice because the flow would be different; it is exactly the same thing, here. 

If you get an intuitive insight about a person, it is because you were repeatedly exposed to that one person over a course of time. Speaking to new people is _not_ necessarily going to provide you insight about _that_ person, though it may provide insight about people as a whole or other persons.

EDIT
Bingo, you type as a 5, which was extremely obvious in some stuff you've written.


----------

